3 ms·

> Nuclear is expensive to build out, it needs investment. It's not expensive, financially, compared to Solar and Wind. But it is expensive politically. For wh

> Nuclear is expensive to build out, it needs investment. It's not expensive, financially, compared to Solar and Wind. But it is expensive politically. For whatever reason, Nuclear is toxic in the public's eye. To shift public opinion is not going to be cheap. Some Nuclear plants were stopped before starting their energy generation due to the public opinion shifting against them. > government is going to have to step up in a big way. We have agreement on that but how that's done is difficult.

fencepost 7y ago
It's not expensive to build or operate as long as everything goes right. If and when things go wrong it may be so expensive that dealing with it requires major resources. IIRC, nuclear plants are all basically government insured because there's no insurance company or set of companies that could underwrite the potential losses from a catastrophic failure. Living only expecting things to go right means that cities don't need to worry about backups and hardened networks. It's when things go wrong that you end up with an HBO series a few decades later.
- heimatau 7y ago
  > It's not expensive to build or operate as long as everything goes right. If and when things go wrong it may be so expensive that dealing with it requires major resources. Say that to France. Stop buying the propaganda. HBO series has warning signs. Chernobyl and Fukushima were grossly mismanagement and ignored the glaring issues. France has never had the problem.
  - fencepost 7y ago
    "Gross mismanagement" is an easy diagnosis after the fact. During the time in which the decisions were being made they probably made perfect sense, at least given the knowledge and constraints the decision makers were working with. With some notable high profile exceptions people don't go into things with the intention of completely screwing them up.
    - heimatau 7y ago
      If the issue is brought up to management more than 3 times then yes, it's gross mismanagement and could be solved. Which is why I provide France as a counter-example. They aren't mismanaging the potential issues. It's a solvable problem and France is continually demonstrating it.
bilbo0s 7y ago
But it is expensive compared to solar and wind. Let's remove all regulations for everyone. Wind, solar, nuclear, everyone. A nuclear plant is still going to run you north of USD1 Billion. Not only that, but you won't start seeing any return for 5 to 10 years. And that's doing everything in a headlong rush, on the cheap, with no regard for safety. Now someone would need to come up with that money. Contrast this with throwing up windmills. You need, (again, no more regulations here), around 500 g's. You start generating income on that outlay inside of a year. Worse, because the prices are so low, enterprising people who would never have been able to compete in the energy markets before, all of a sudden are able to slap up windmills too. It can just snowball into a free for all. What happened in Iowa was a bit more controlled than that, but you still ended up with runaway growth in wind generation capacity. And now their nuclear plant is literally closing down. It can't even compete. One nuclear plant can out generate one windmill. But if everyone and his mother is gonna try to get a piece of the wind generation pie on their family's farm, well, that's an awful lot of windmills. We've got to get serious and look at the energy markets in a realistic fashion. Iowans are not anti-nuclear hippies, they just don't want to get a bill for 15 cents a kWh instead of the bill for 2 cents a kWh. I don't blame them. Yeah, go wind, and fill in the gaps with whatever fossil fuel generation you have. It's cheaper for you. But we've got to get realistic about that fact and have government either pay for nuclear outright, or put it's finger on the scale like it ended up doing with Vogtie. Basically, telling consumers that you have to use the energy from the nuclear plant, you have to pay the higher price, and you're not allowed to switch away from it. Like you said, that was not popular, but it is what it is. Those are the choices, we can't soft pedal this stuff anymore if we're serious about a carbon free future.
- heimatau 7y ago
  It is cheaper by all measures. Which is what you're not understanding. Even if there is a a few years until actually being fully operational. It is still a better use of capital, providing the situation you described (no regulations for everyone). Which, to me, would remove the substitutes to solar. A nuclear power plant has lower upkeep than the 20-30 year lifespan of wind and solar. This is a large cost you aren't including. Small nuclear is uneconomical the last time I ran the numbers but mid to large scale is. 1 GW Nuclear power plant uses less land, less resources in materials and labor, and is more durable considering the maintenance/upkeep. If you compared that to solar or wind, using the most economical price point, it wouldn't even come close. But Nuclear has major problems, since your situation isn't realized, an investor could lose 100% of their investment just to be used as a political scapegoat. You don't see that often with Wind and Solar. So, given the current environment, yes, Wind/Solar are more economical but give no regulations and no substities, Nuclear would be the most economical.
lkbm 7y ago
> It's not expensive, financially, compared to Solar and Wind. Per-megawatt, it might not cost more but: 1. The upfront investment is high. I can build a 1MW solar installation, or 10MW, or 100MW. Our smallest nuclear plant is around 500MW. 2. It will take many years to build. 3. It will take even longer to fully pay itself off. Nuclear is fine if you have a massive amount of capital and know the market won't change in the next 50 year. But no rational actor in the energy market is about to bet on that stability when solar is a much more nimble investment that's cost-competitive.

fencepost 7y ago

It's not expensive to build or operate as long as everything goes right. If and when things go wrong it may be so expensive that dealing with it requires major resources. IIRC, nuclear plants are all basically government insured because there's no insurance company or set of companies that could underwrite the potential losses from a catastrophic failure. Living only expecting things to go right means that cities don't need to worry about backups and hardened networks. It's when things go wrong that you end up with an HBO series a few decades later.

heimatau 7y ago
> It's not expensive to build or operate as long as everything goes right. If and when things go wrong it may be so expensive that dealing with it requires major resources. Say that to France. Stop buying the propaganda. HBO series has warning signs. Chernobyl and Fukushima were grossly mismanagement and ignored the glaring issues. France has never had the problem.
- fencepost 7y ago
  "Gross mismanagement" is an easy diagnosis after the fact. During the time in which the decisions were being made they probably made perfect sense, at least given the knowledge and constraints the decision makers were working with. With some notable high profile exceptions people don't go into things with the intention of completely screwing them up.
  - heimatau 7y ago
    If the issue is brought up to management more than 3 times then yes, it's gross mismanagement and could be solved. Which is why I provide France as a counter-example. They aren't mismanaging the potential issues. It's a solvable problem and France is continually demonstrating it.

bilbo0s 7y ago

But it is expensive compared to solar and wind. Let's remove all regulations for everyone. Wind, solar, nuclear, everyone. A nuclear plant is still going to run you north of USD1 Billion. Not only that, but you won't start seeing any return for 5 to 10 years. And that's doing everything in a headlong rush, on the cheap, with no regard for safety. Now someone would need to come up with that money. Contrast this with throwing up windmills. You need, (again, no more regulations here), around 500 g's. You start generating income on that outlay inside of a year. Worse, because the prices are so low, enterprising people who would never have been able to compete in the energy markets before, all of a sudden are able to slap up windmills too. It can just snowball into a free for all. What happened in Iowa was a bit more controlled than that, but you still ended up with runaway growth in wind generation capacity. And now their nuclear plant is literally closing down. It can't even compete. One nuclear plant can out generate one windmill. But if everyone and his mother is gonna try to get a piece of the wind generation pie on their family's farm, well, that's an awful lot of windmills. We've got to get serious and look at the energy markets in a realistic fashion. Iowans are not anti-nuclear hippies, they just don't want to get a bill for 15 cents a kWh instead of the bill for 2 cents a kWh. I don't blame them. Yeah, go wind, and fill in the gaps with whatever fossil fuel generation you have. It's cheaper for you. But we've got to get realistic about that fact and have government either pay for nuclear outright, or put it's finger on the scale like it ended up doing with Vogtie. Basically, telling consumers that you have to use the energy from the nuclear plant, you have to pay the higher price, and you're not allowed to switch away from it. Like you said, that was not popular, but it is what it is. Those are the choices, we can't soft pedal this stuff anymore if we're serious about a carbon free future.

heimatau 7y ago
It is cheaper by all measures. Which is what you're not understanding. Even if there is a a few years until actually being fully operational. It is still a better use of capital, providing the situation you described (no regulations for everyone). Which, to me, would remove the substitutes to solar. A nuclear power plant has lower upkeep than the 20-30 year lifespan of wind and solar. This is a large cost you aren't including. Small nuclear is uneconomical the last time I ran the numbers but mid to large scale is. 1 GW Nuclear power plant uses less land, less resources in materials and labor, and is more durable considering the maintenance/upkeep. If you compared that to solar or wind, using the most economical price point, it wouldn't even come close. But Nuclear has major problems, since your situation isn't realized, an investor could lose 100% of their investment just to be used as a political scapegoat. You don't see that often with Wind and Solar. So, given the current environment, yes, Wind/Solar are more economical but give no regulations and no substities, Nuclear would be the most economical.

lkbm 7y ago

> It's not expensive, financially, compared to Solar and Wind. Per-megawatt, it might not cost more but: 1. The upfront investment is high. I can build a 1MW solar installation, or 10MW, or 100MW. Our smallest nuclear plant is around 500MW. 2. It will take many years to build. 3. It will take even longer to fully pay itself off. Nuclear is fine if you have a massive amount of capital and know the market won't change in the next 50 year. But no rational actor in the energy market is about to bet on that stability when solar is a much more nimble investment that's cost-competitive.