3 ms·

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 f

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
    It doesn't matter if it's technically correct, from a certain perspective. What matters is that when you say something like that, you come off like a smug mansplaining dudebro who treats anyone who disagrees like they're an idiot. It's not a science problem, it's a sales problem. And if you want concerned environmentalist-oriented people to come to your side, you do not do it by mocking their stupidity with a ridiculous-sounding "fact". Doesn't matter if that "fact" is true. Is your goal to convince environmentalists to support nuclear power over solar, or to prove how much smarter you are?
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      OK well I can agree with that! I have never converted an antinuke with that fact. I have converted dozens (at least from absolute rejection to cautious optimism) with 10-15 minute in-person discussions. I have not found out how to scale that. Indeed, this is a sales problem.
      - 7y ago

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
  It doesn't matter if it's technically correct, from a certain perspective. What matters is that when you say something like that, you come off like a smug mansplaining dudebro who treats anyone who disagrees like they're an idiot. It's not a science problem, it's a sales problem. And if you want concerned environmentalist-oriented people to come to your side, you do not do it by mocking their stupidity with a ridiculous-sounding "fact". Doesn't matter if that "fact" is true. Is your goal to convince environmentalists to support nuclear power over solar, or to prove how much smarter you are?
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    OK well I can agree with that! I have never converted an antinuke with that fact. I have converted dozens (at least from absolute rejection to cautious optimism) with 10-15 minute in-person discussions. I have not found out how to scale that. Indeed, this is a sales problem.
    - 7y ago