5 ms·

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of s

In fairness, no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants. The problem is the renewables. In Iowa, they are in the process of shuttering their nuclear plants. Now no one in Iowa was out protesting the plants or anything, but here's the issue. Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. (Seriously, drive through Iowa sometime and you'll see what I mean.) Even relatively small investors can get together, slap up some windmills, and start making some money. Now imagine you're in Iowa and deciding on which electric bill you want to pay. Do you want to pay the 2 to 3 cents per kWh for wind? Or do you want to pay the 5x cost for coal or nuclear? Not surprisingly, Iowans, who are more poor than most of you on the coasts, have switched to wind in a big way. It's a money problem. If we want nuclear, we have to convince the government to subsidize it. You're not going to find a lot of people out there who will just agree to sign up and pay 5 to 10 times the electricity bill just for the pleasure of saying they're using carbon free nuclear. It's like organic food. Sure, maybe it is better for them. But a lot of the masses only see the price tag.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
People do need to be convinced that nuclear is better than natural gas. In calm winter nights, nuclear is competing with natural gas, not wind. And because of fracking and horizontal drilling, the electricity prices have fallen in deregulated markets like the midwest, and electricity revenues have dropped precipitously. When you have a plant that's all capital and O&M with very low fuel cost (like a nuke), this unexpected drop in electricity price is hard to swallow and you shut down. Having natural gas prices go back up because it emits greenhouse gas would have a lot better optics than subsidizing nuclear plants. But you're right that Iowans don't care about that. Shoot, even in Seattle we couldn't get a carbon tax passed. The nuclear industry needs to get serious about reducing its costs. It's not very efficient. They've got a few hundred people at each plant doing regulatory compliance paperwork with some really inefficient and expensive process. At least the nuclear industry is trying, a little: https://www.nei.org/resources/delivering-the-nuclear-promise https://www.nei.org/resources/delivering-the-nuclear-promise
- beat 7y ago
  And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance bureaucracy is one of those things that pro-nuclear people really need to stop saying, even to the extent that it's true (which is less than they think). Distrust of big corporations is as high as distrust of government, and for good reason. No one wants to live downwind from a nuclear plant constructed by the lowest bidder. Blaming the cost and construction issues on those stupid anti-science treehuggers and their liberal regulations is just alienating the very people you need to win over. That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. And there's probably not a less attractive look for nuclear enthusiasts than some dude mansplaining about how solar is more dangerous than nuclear based on the number of people who smash their thumbs with a hammer while installing panels.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    > That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly zero compared to fossil fuels. Apparent risks, now that's a real problem. Can be solved with PR and education. Check my link in the previous post. You'll see that the industry is writing down in good detail exactly how it plans to reduce costs by increasing procedural efficiency without reducing safety. To just say that appropriate safety has to be expensive, and any attempt to fix it is unsafe, is pretty bold, especially in the face of what the climate scientists are predicting with continued carbon emissions. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4e0e968709b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
    - beat 7y ago
chrisco255 7y ago
I've seen the same thing in north Texas and Kansas but wind isn't everywhere in such large quantities (with tons of farm land to easily build on to boot).
- magduf 7y ago
  Exactly; in places where wind works really, really well, you might as well take advantage of it. If you really can get your power from wind, why bother with nuclear? (But what about when the wind dies down?) But there's many places where wind power just isn't feasible.
thinkcontext 7y ago
> no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants Germany decided to shut their nukes before their coal plants
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  In a panic over a Tsunami - note that Germany doesn't have a coast to speak off and is not prone to tsunamis. It was also used to keep the Greens on side though you do have to ask who benefits and is keeping coal plant open longer really a green solution.
  - danielbln 7y ago
    The nuclear exit was planned long before Fukushima, all Fukishima did was create public pressure to not go through with the prolonging of the nuclear exit that was originally planned. There are 7 reactors operational still, although most are in the process of deconstruction.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    German here - it is not because of panic over a tsunami, but about the complete incompetence shown in the Fukushima disaster. The plant had construction faults, the operations after the disaster failed to prevent a preventeable disaster. Yes, we won't have a tsunami at any our nuclear power plants. But whatever else has been overlooked during their construction, where are the operating companies maybe cutting too many corners to save costs?
    - asdff 7y ago
      I assume you've stopped flying on airplanes decades ago.
      - _ph_ 7y ago
        No, and I have no reason to assume, that large regions become contaminated if the airplane crashed.
boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. Why are you sure this is the reason? If the price tag is the main concern, the North Dakota oil boom and ongoing pipeline projects are probably the primary cause.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  What are you saying here? Why would additional supplies of energy cause the price to rise?
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    They seem to be saying that Iowa is closing their one nuclear plant because wind farms are cheaper. People primarily care about price, and don't want their government providing massive subsidies. If price is what's causing them to turn away from nuclear, then they probably turned to cheaper oil. And they seem fine providing massive subsidies to further things like the Dakota Access pipeline.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      I agree there is an implicit subsidy for pipelines, in the sense that if the pipeline operators screw up and poison everyone who lives nearby, society will probably do something to clean that up. That's similar to any useful but dangerous facility that we allow to be built and operated. (Like, for instance, a nuclear power plant...) Pipelines are still superior to other petroleum transport modes such as trains, in terms of both cost and safety. Most taxpayers can think of other projects that deserve the epithet "massive subsidy" more than a pipeline funded entirely by its owners. I don't see the connection to wind generation, however. Did some Iowa landowner finance a wind farm with a DAPL eminent-domain payment? That seems tenuous.

acidburnNSA 7y ago

People do need to be convinced that nuclear is better than natural gas. In calm winter nights, nuclear is competing with natural gas, not wind. And because of fracking and horizontal drilling, the electricity prices have fallen in deregulated markets like the midwest, and electricity revenues have dropped precipitously. When you have a plant that's all capital and O&M with very low fuel cost (like a nuke), this unexpected drop in electricity price is hard to swallow and you shut down. Having natural gas prices go back up because it emits greenhouse gas would have a lot better optics than subsidizing nuclear plants. But you're right that Iowans don't care about that. Shoot, even in Seattle we couldn't get a carbon tax passed. The nuclear industry needs to get serious about reducing its costs. It's not very efficient. They've got a few hundred people at each plant doing regulatory compliance paperwork with some really inefficient and expensive process. At least the nuclear industry is trying, a little: https://www.nei.org/resources/delivering-the-nuclear-promise https://www.nei.org/resources/delivering-the-nuclear-promise

beat 7y ago
And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance bureaucracy is one of those things that pro-nuclear people really need to stop saying, even to the extent that it's true (which is less than they think). Distrust of big corporations is as high as distrust of government, and for good reason. No one wants to live downwind from a nuclear plant constructed by the lowest bidder. Blaming the cost and construction issues on those stupid anti-science treehuggers and their liberal regulations is just alienating the very people you need to win over. That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. And there's probably not a less attractive look for nuclear enthusiasts than some dude mansplaining about how solar is more dangerous than nuclear based on the number of people who smash their thumbs with a hammer while installing panels.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  > That said, nuclear will never, ever be able to achieve either the real or the apparent risk levels of a wind farm or a bunch of rooftop solar panels. I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly zero compared to fossil fuels. Apparent risks, now that's a real problem. Can be solved with PR and education. Check my link in the previous post. You'll see that the industry is writing down in good detail exactly how it plans to reduce costs by increasing procedural efficiency without reducing safety. To just say that appropriate safety has to be expensive, and any attempt to fix it is unsafe, is pretty bold, especially in the face of what the climate scientists are predicting with continued carbon emissions. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#4e0e968709b7 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
  - beat 7y ago

chrisco255 7y ago

I've seen the same thing in north Texas and Kansas but wind isn't everywhere in such large quantities (with tons of farm land to easily build on to boot).

magduf 7y ago
Exactly; in places where wind works really, really well, you might as well take advantage of it. If you really can get your power from wind, why bother with nuclear? (But what about when the wind dies down?) But there's many places where wind power just isn't feasible.

thinkcontext 7y ago

> no one needs to be convinced that nuclear plants are better than coal plants Germany decided to shut their nukes before their coal plants

C1sc0cat 7y ago
In a panic over a Tsunami - note that Germany doesn't have a coast to speak off and is not prone to tsunamis. It was also used to keep the Greens on side though you do have to ask who benefits and is keeping coal plant open longer really a green solution.
- danielbln 7y ago
  The nuclear exit was planned long before Fukushima, all Fukishima did was create public pressure to not go through with the prolonging of the nuclear exit that was originally planned. There are 7 reactors operational still, although most are in the process of deconstruction.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  German here - it is not because of panic over a tsunami, but about the complete incompetence shown in the Fukushima disaster. The plant had construction faults, the operations after the disaster failed to prevent a preventeable disaster. Yes, we won't have a tsunami at any our nuclear power plants. But whatever else has been overlooked during their construction, where are the operating companies maybe cutting too many corners to save costs?
  - asdff 7y ago
    I assume you've stopped flying on airplanes decades ago.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      No, and I have no reason to assume, that large regions become contaminated if the airplane crashed.

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>Windmills have reached a level of practicality and low cost that encouraged Iowans to slap them up almost everywhere. Why are you sure this is the reason? If the price tag is the main concern, the North Dakota oil boom and ongoing pipeline projects are probably the primary cause.

jessaustin 7y ago
What are you saying here? Why would additional supplies of energy cause the price to rise?
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  They seem to be saying that Iowa is closing their one nuclear plant because wind farms are cheaper. People primarily care about price, and don't want their government providing massive subsidies. If price is what's causing them to turn away from nuclear, then they probably turned to cheaper oil. And they seem fine providing massive subsidies to further things like the Dakota Access pipeline.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I agree there is an implicit subsidy for pipelines, in the sense that if the pipeline operators screw up and poison everyone who lives nearby, society will probably do something to clean that up. That's similar to any useful but dangerous facility that we allow to be built and operated. (Like, for instance, a nuclear power plant...) Pipelines are still superior to other petroleum transport modes such as trains, in terms of both cost and safety. Most taxpayers can think of other projects that deserve the epithet "massive subsidy" more than a pipeline funded entirely by its owners. I don't see the connection to wind generation, however. Did some Iowa landowner finance a wind farm with a DAPL eminent-domain payment? That seems tenuous.