4 ms·
The whole article reeks of politicized shaming of those stupid treehuggers falling for the lies of corrupt Hollywood. Sigh. Meanwhile, out in the real world, t
by beat 7y ago
The whole article reeks of politicized shaming of those stupid treehuggers falling for the lies of corrupt Hollywood. Sigh.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, the arguments for nuclear power are rapidly fading - on economic grounds, not safety grounds. Even assuming that nuclear is as safe as its most enthusiastic proponents claim, it's not a good investment anymore. Why? Because the cost/energy of storage-backed wind/solar is plummeting, and we don't know yet where the bottom is, due to rapid advances in technology and increasing economies of scale in production and deployment. The cost of nuclear plants is largely up-front - they're cheap to operate over decades, but expensive to build. If someone spends billions on new plants, and by the time they're built a decade later, solar costs half as much as nuclear, there's almost no reason to even fire the plants up.
This isn't a safety risk. This is a capital risk. Businesses care more about risking their money than risking people's lives. Building more nuclear power right now could turn into the kind of boondoggle that bankrupts utilities. Think the public is mad about nuclear disaster risk? Wait til they're being asked to pay more on their bills to bail out a utility that wasted billions on unused nuclear plants.
And the financial risk just begs the question... what's the benefit of nuclear at all, in a world where storage-backed solar/wind is clearly the future? The cost is lower, the risk is lower, it's available to nations that can't afford (or shouldn't be allowed to have) nuclear plants, etc. Barriers to entry in terms of cost and time to market are extremely low, so low that even ordinary citizens can get in on the game.
Demanding nuclear power at this point makes no economic sense. Which means the demands have other motivations, and we should think about why we think nuclear is so darn important in this day and age.
- clucas 7y agoIf there is no economic sense in building nuke plants, we can just stop talking about it, right? Presumably the utilities will run their analysis, and if you're right, the plants will just never get built. Is the nuclear lobby so strong that it is able to force utilities to go against the simple economics? Even the coal lobby, which I assume (perhaps incorrectly?) is larger and more entrenched, is losing that battle... I hope you're right, because these periodic debates (on HN and elsewhere) always have the same old arguments and no one ever seems to be convinced.
- beat 7y agoWhen's the last time a new plant got built in the US? What's the construction rate for new plants, even in less regulated and more centrally controlled nations like Russia and China? Economics is very powerful.
- earthicus 7y agohttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_plant_construction.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_power_plant_... There's a source for the recent data given in the 'description section'.