5 ms·

Nuclear is, unfortunately, way too expensive to operate. It's hard enough to keep some existing plants running, let alone build new ones, just based on the eco

Nuclear is, unfortunately, way too expensive to operate. It's hard enough to keep some existing plants running, let alone build new ones, just based on the economics of it alone. Solar and wind, meanwhile, are cheap enough that they're being built in massive numbers even without subsidies. We just need to solve the energy storage gap.

sword_smith 7y ago
"just" might not be the right word here. Electric cars existed in the 1890s but their range was too short. Which is exactly the same problem they have today. The problem of non-existent cheap energy storage has been around for more than a century.
- Retric 7y ago
  Battery backup seems to mostly be there in terms of daily storage. “1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery.“ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-... Seasonal issues are more complex and likely involve other sources like Wind/Hydro/etc.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Do you really think there has been no progress making electric cars better? I don't think you've been paying attention.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  A tremendous amount of progress has been made in battery technology since the 1890s. We're the vast majority of the way there in terms of total progress and development that needs to be made on the technology. And you can get EVs today that have the same range as petroleum-powered vehicles, which is much, more longer than the average trip. EVs have well over 20X the range they did a century ago, so no, they don't have "exactly the same problem today".
melling 7y ago
Why is too expensive to operate? China is still building them. Can’t we develop a standard design to reduce the red tape? Nuclear had a good run until the Three Mile Island accident.
- i_am_nomad 7y ago
  What China is or isn’t building is not a good guideline for infrastructure investment.
  - loeg 7y ago
    This isn't responsive to the parent comment in any way.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    It absolutely is. The PRC tends to invest in infrastructure projects for the future, and not for today. That's something western politicians do an awful job of with their 4 year election cycles.
- mikeash 7y ago
  Nuclear had some horrendous accidents before TMI. It’s just that they were military facilities, so it got hushed up. TMI was far from the first, it was just the first that didn’t get the cover of “national security” thrown over it. Look up Windscale, Kyshtym, and SL-1 for some prominent examples. We can certainly do much better today, though.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  It needs lots of people, and many of the people must be highly trained. This makes it more suitable for low labor cost markets. Nuclear was having serious cost escalation problems in the US even before the TMI accident.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Nuclear costs squat to run. It's all the construction costs you need to amortize over the life of the plant that screw you.
lightedman 7y ago
There is no energy storage gap. The same storage systems that coal and gas fired plants utilize (pumped hydro dams, flywheels, molten salt batteries, etc.) are right there and available for use. Anyone saying the storage of energy is a problem has not looked at what traditional power generation plants use for power storage after generation.
exabrial 7y ago
Nuclear makes a great "base load" handler actually. It's complementary to solar/wind.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Except it doesn't, because it's too expensive to operate and not only are new nuclear plants not being built (for economic reasons), but existing ones are being shut down (for economic reasons; see the article).
- pfdietz 7y ago
  No, nuclear is a poor complement to solar/wind. To complement solar/wind you want a source that has low capital cost and that can be ramped up and down quickly, to fill in gaps. This is pretty much the opposite of what nuclear is.

sword_smith 7y ago

"just" might not be the right word here. Electric cars existed in the 1890s but their range was too short. Which is exactly the same problem they have today. The problem of non-existent cheap energy storage has been around for more than a century.

Retric 7y ago
Battery backup seems to mostly be there in terms of daily storage. “1.997 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) for the solar power and 1.3 cents per kWh for the battery.“ https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-cheap-solar-power-are-shoving-fossil-fuels-grid https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/07/giant-batteries-and-... Seasonal issues are more complex and likely involve other sources like Wind/Hydro/etc.
skybrian 7y ago
Do you really think there has been no progress making electric cars better? I don't think you've been paying attention.
CydeWeys 7y ago
A tremendous amount of progress has been made in battery technology since the 1890s. We're the vast majority of the way there in terms of total progress and development that needs to be made on the technology. And you can get EVs today that have the same range as petroleum-powered vehicles, which is much, more longer than the average trip. EVs have well over 20X the range they did a century ago, so no, they don't have "exactly the same problem today".

melling 7y ago

Why is too expensive to operate? China is still building them. Can’t we develop a standard design to reduce the red tape? Nuclear had a good run until the Three Mile Island accident.

i_am_nomad 7y ago
What China is or isn’t building is not a good guideline for infrastructure investment.
- loeg 7y ago
  This isn't responsive to the parent comment in any way.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  It absolutely is. The PRC tends to invest in infrastructure projects for the future, and not for today. That's something western politicians do an awful job of with their 4 year election cycles.
mikeash 7y ago
Nuclear had some horrendous accidents before TMI. It’s just that they were military facilities, so it got hushed up. TMI was far from the first, it was just the first that didn’t get the cover of “national security” thrown over it. Look up Windscale, Kyshtym, and SL-1 for some prominent examples. We can certainly do much better today, though.
pfdietz 7y ago
It needs lots of people, and many of the people must be highly trained. This makes it more suitable for low labor cost markets. Nuclear was having serious cost escalation problems in the US even before the TMI accident.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Nuclear costs squat to run. It's all the construction costs you need to amortize over the life of the plant that screw you.

lightedman 7y ago

There is no energy storage gap. The same storage systems that coal and gas fired plants utilize (pumped hydro dams, flywheels, molten salt batteries, etc.) are right there and available for use. Anyone saying the storage of energy is a problem has not looked at what traditional power generation plants use for power storage after generation.

exabrial 7y ago

Nuclear makes a great "base load" handler actually. It's complementary to solar/wind.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Except it doesn't, because it's too expensive to operate and not only are new nuclear plants not being built (for economic reasons), but existing ones are being shut down (for economic reasons; see the article).
pfdietz 7y ago
No, nuclear is a poor complement to solar/wind. To complement solar/wind you want a source that has low capital cost and that can be ramped up and down quickly, to fill in gaps. This is pretty much the opposite of what nuclear is.