4 ms·

I think this is an excellent point. The current emotional baggage with nuclear is stopping serious investment into this tech, which I believe has the potential

by beobab 7y ago

I think this is an excellent point. The current emotional baggage with nuclear is stopping serious investment into this tech, which I believe has the potential to save the planet. Gen IV nuclear is completely safe from meltdown, and some varieties can consume waste from previous generations, and yet most people (me included) have a visceral reaction to the idea of a plant being built near where we live.

epistasis 7y ago
When it comes to nuclear, there are many many sites that would welcome more of it, because the local economy is built around it and the residents don't have the fears you discuss. Instead, what stop nuclear investment is fear of economic disasters, rather than ecological disasters. Nuclear has a horrifying track record when it comes to construction, bankrupting utilities, nearly bankrupting Toshiba, and in general being far too risky to justify the meager returns. If one is investing $10B on a 60 year timeframe, that investment is highly sensitive to changes in the up front cost, especially when those increases up front costs result in no greater revenue. Typical nuclear construction will be 2-3x as costly as anticipated up front, and delayed by many years. It's no surprise that investors don't want to take this risk for very mild returns. Further. Anybody watching tech curves sees that, even 5 years ago, it was clear that using batteries to store wind and solar energy would be cheaper than nuclear very early into the lifespan of any new nuclear facility. This means that the only route to nuclear would 1) a market where nuclear makes all its money for the year in the 4-6 week seasons minimum of intermittent renewables (unlikely), or 2) massive government subsidies that say "we must have nuclear no matter what, and we will pay the market to make that happen." That second route is much more likely to work, for the other governmental benefits of having nuclear (more nuclear engineers for subs and other things).

by beobab 7y ago

epistasis 7y ago

When it comes to nuclear, there are many many sites that would welcome more of it, because the local economy is built around it and the residents don't have the fears you discuss. Instead, what stop nuclear investment is fear of economic disasters, rather than ecological disasters. Nuclear has a horrifying track record when it comes to construction, bankrupting utilities, nearly bankrupting Toshiba, and in general being far too risky to justify the meager returns. If one is investing $10B on a 60 year timeframe, that investment is highly sensitive to changes in the up front cost, especially when those increases up front costs result in no greater revenue. Typical nuclear construction will be 2-3x as costly as anticipated up front, and delayed by many years. It's no surprise that investors don't want to take this risk for very mild returns. Further. Anybody watching tech curves sees that, even 5 years ago, it was clear that using batteries to store wind and solar energy would be cheaper than nuclear very early into the lifespan of any new nuclear facility. This means that the only route to nuclear would 1) a market where nuclear makes all its money for the year in the 4-6 week seasons minimum of intermittent renewables (unlikely), or 2) massive government subsidies that say "we must have nuclear no matter what, and we will pay the market to make that happen." That second route is much more likely to work, for the other governmental benefits of having nuclear (more nuclear engineers for subs and other things).