8 ms·

Conversations about public perception ignore the bigger problem of cost. Why build big expensive nuclear plants that frequently have to be subsidized and bailed

by NickM 7y ago

Conversations about public perception ignore the bigger problem of cost. Why build big expensive nuclear plants that frequently have to be subsidized and bailed out, when solar/wind/storage are already cheaper and continue to drop in cost? Even if we never have another meltdown again, and even if we never have a containment breach of the waste for the next 10k years, the economics just don't make sense.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CountSessine 7y ago
Because there are only a few sites in the world that can supply reliable wind power in the megawatts, and the scales of storage required to provide even minimal backup power for solar to make it useful at the 3TW of power used by the United States are probably impossible (the figure I've heard for pumped water, e.g., is that every lake in the US would have to be raised 400m). Solar/wind/storage means getting by with orders of magnitude less energy usage. Maybe we should? I just think that asking people to vote for that is even more impossible than getting them to vote for nuclear.
- ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
  Needing massive amounts of storage to make renewable work is an often repeated myth. Large reductions in carbon output are achievable with current storage with a mixture of wind, limited solar and the right price/balancing incentives.
  - CountSessine 7y ago
    Do the math. Figure out how much water you need to lift and how high to supply a day of 3TW of power.
    - imtringued 7y ago
      My numbers tell me North America has 1 PWh of storage capacity just for gas alone. This isn't even counting all the EWhs that we haven't extracted yet or the unlimited amount we could produce by using excess energy and turning it into hydrogen or methane.
      - akvadrako 7y ago
        Are you suggesting we store the energy in gas?
- Vinnl 7y ago
  > I just think that asking people to vote for that is even more impossible than getting them to vote for nuclear. GP still has a point: asking people to vote for nuclear sounds hard because of the perceived risks, but even if there was no perception of risk, it'll still be very hard to justify the costs to voters.
  - CountSessine 7y ago
    The cost of nuclear or the cost of wind/solar/storage? Solar is dirt cheap for 2 hours out of the day - how much does it cost at 10pm? This isn't a dennard-scaling problem - it's Watts, and it won't necessarily get cheaper the more we need to store - if commodity scarcity kicks in, it could get more expensive! Storing enough energy to supply 3TW of power is daunting. I don't think we can do it and I think we'll need to just use less. Then what's the cost of using orders of magnitude less power? "You can't commute to work anymore because your car will be too expensive to charge. Or, rather it will be a luxury to use a car." "Ok, I guess?" "You'll have to live within a few miles of work" "Well..." "If you have a two income family and your workplaces are across the city, one of you will need to leave your job." "That sounds difficult." "You can't have a detached house in the suburbs. You'll bankrupt yourself heating it". "I have to move? Hmm... what was that you said about nuclear?"
    - Xylakant 7y ago
      > "You can't commute to work anymore because your car will be too expensive to charge. Or, rather it will be a luxury to use a car." Yes it will be. There are many many more externalities to using cars as primary transit than their CO2 output. Noise, land use, inefficient use of energy in terms of kWh/personmile, microplastic from tires, accidents,... > You’ll have to live within a few miles of work.” There’s such things as mass transit that’s actually quite ok at solving that problem. Now, if you mean “we cannot all live in suburbs and everyone gets a house and a little garden.”, yes, that’s already true. The sprawl would not be possible to manage. It’s already not true for a large chunk of the population. Heating a house is the least of our issues. Heat is something that we can store fairly easily: Take a large, well insulated tank in your basement, fill it with water (or a better suited liquid, but water will actually do). Heat it up during the day, either using solar panels or electricity driving a heat pump, use it during the night. Works with coolant, too. Insulation is a fairly well understood problem and in such a setting, losses are fairly low.
Meandering 7y ago
The economics of building nuclear power plants is directly affected by the availability of tooling and volume of the production. The reduced number of new plants has resulted in increased costs for the parts required to build a plant. If we build more plants, capital costs will be reduced. I agree that solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources are ideal for smaller installations. Although, battery technology, manufacturing capacity, and available raw resources will not be capable of supporting radical change anytime soon. New nuclear can be a solution. Or, at least, it will need to be part of the process if we are going to replace large scale carbon emitting power production facilities.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  It doesn't need to be part of the process. As renewables build out, it's less and less clear how nuclear can fit in at all. Renewables crash the price of power too often for nuclear to compete.
  - Meandering 7y ago
    Nuclear power offers large scale production with a reduced physical footprint. For instance, New York city would be more suited to the physical logistics of a nuclear power plant. The availability of light(winter months) and land area doesn't play well for solar/wind generation. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but, I doubt New York will be able to go 100% renewable for decades, if not a century.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      If only there were things called "transmission lines" that could carry power hundreds of miles and concentrate it into locations with high power use. And as I argued, renewables don't have to go 100% to kill nuclear. Just forcing nuclear to be intermittent, when the renewables and short term storage are not available, is sufficient.

by NickM 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

CountSessine 7y ago

Because there are only a few sites in the world that can supply reliable wind power in the megawatts, and the scales of storage required to provide even minimal backup power for solar to make it useful at the 3TW of power used by the United States are probably impossible (the figure I've heard for pumped water, e.g., is that every lake in the US would have to be raised 400m). Solar/wind/storage means getting by with orders of magnitude less energy usage. Maybe we should? I just think that asking people to vote for that is even more impossible than getting them to vote for nuclear.

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
Needing massive amounts of storage to make renewable work is an often repeated myth. Large reductions in carbon output are achievable with current storage with a mixture of wind, limited solar and the right price/balancing incentives.
- CountSessine 7y ago
  Do the math. Figure out how much water you need to lift and how high to supply a day of 3TW of power.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    My numbers tell me North America has 1 PWh of storage capacity just for gas alone. This isn't even counting all the EWhs that we haven't extracted yet or the unlimited amount we could produce by using excess energy and turning it into hydrogen or methane.
    - akvadrako 7y ago
      Are you suggesting we store the energy in gas?
Vinnl 7y ago
> I just think that asking people to vote for that is even more impossible than getting them to vote for nuclear. GP still has a point: asking people to vote for nuclear sounds hard because of the perceived risks, but even if there was no perception of risk, it'll still be very hard to justify the costs to voters.
- CountSessine 7y ago
  The cost of nuclear or the cost of wind/solar/storage? Solar is dirt cheap for 2 hours out of the day - how much does it cost at 10pm? This isn't a dennard-scaling problem - it's Watts, and it won't necessarily get cheaper the more we need to store - if commodity scarcity kicks in, it could get more expensive! Storing enough energy to supply 3TW of power is daunting. I don't think we can do it and I think we'll need to just use less. Then what's the cost of using orders of magnitude less power? "You can't commute to work anymore because your car will be too expensive to charge. Or, rather it will be a luxury to use a car." "Ok, I guess?" "You'll have to live within a few miles of work" "Well..." "If you have a two income family and your workplaces are across the city, one of you will need to leave your job." "That sounds difficult." "You can't have a detached house in the suburbs. You'll bankrupt yourself heating it". "I have to move? Hmm... what was that you said about nuclear?"
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    > "You can't commute to work anymore because your car will be too expensive to charge. Or, rather it will be a luxury to use a car." Yes it will be. There are many many more externalities to using cars as primary transit than their CO2 output. Noise, land use, inefficient use of energy in terms of kWh/personmile, microplastic from tires, accidents,... > You’ll have to live within a few miles of work.” There’s such things as mass transit that’s actually quite ok at solving that problem. Now, if you mean “we cannot all live in suburbs and everyone gets a house and a little garden.”, yes, that’s already true. The sprawl would not be possible to manage. It’s already not true for a large chunk of the population. Heating a house is the least of our issues. Heat is something that we can store fairly easily: Take a large, well insulated tank in your basement, fill it with water (or a better suited liquid, but water will actually do). Heat it up during the day, either using solar panels or electricity driving a heat pump, use it during the night. Works with coolant, too. Insulation is a fairly well understood problem and in such a setting, losses are fairly low.

Meandering 7y ago

The economics of building nuclear power plants is directly affected by the availability of tooling and volume of the production. The reduced number of new plants has resulted in increased costs for the parts required to build a plant. If we build more plants, capital costs will be reduced. I agree that solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources are ideal for smaller installations. Although, battery technology, manufacturing capacity, and available raw resources will not be capable of supporting radical change anytime soon. New nuclear can be a solution. Or, at least, it will need to be part of the process if we are going to replace large scale carbon emitting power production facilities.

pfdietz 7y ago
It doesn't need to be part of the process. As renewables build out, it's less and less clear how nuclear can fit in at all. Renewables crash the price of power too often for nuclear to compete.
- Meandering 7y ago
  Nuclear power offers large scale production with a reduced physical footprint. For instance, New York city would be more suited to the physical logistics of a nuclear power plant. The availability of light(winter months) and land area doesn't play well for solar/wind generation. I'm not saying it couldn't be done but, I doubt New York will be able to go 100% renewable for decades, if not a century.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    If only there were things called "transmission lines" that could carry power hundreds of miles and concentrate it into locations with high power use. And as I argued, renewables don't have to go 100% to kill nuclear. Just forcing nuclear to be intermittent, when the renewables and short term storage are not available, is sufficient.