3 ms·

Not to mention the capital costs of building a nuclear plant far excede renewable new-builds. Why spend 20 billion and deal with the costs/risk associated with

Not to mention the capital costs of building a nuclear plant far excede renewable new-builds. Why spend 20 billion and deal with the costs/risk associated with 50-year financing when you could spend a few tens of millions and throw up a few smaller renewable builds where they're needed and start seeing returns on invetment in 2-3 years rather than 15.

Accujack 7y ago
The cost of building a plant with old technology is high. That's because it's been over-regulated and because it's old tech. Newer plant designs will be cheaper to build and simpler. They will need to be regulated differently as a matter of course because they're fundamentally different designs. What you're saying here is that building a 1960s nuclear power plant design with modern regulation is expensive, which is true, but that's like saying that driving a 1955 Ford Thunderbird is expensive when compared to a Tesla S. That's true, but you're comparing apples and rocks, here.
- apcragg 7y ago
  Which newer plants? I'm still paying for the cost over-runs at Vogtle here in Georgia which is a 'modern' plant. Granted, Westinghouse went bankrupt but Wind/Solar builds don't have the same risks concentrated in a single manufacturer. Sure, we have some research reactors which use (the now meme'd by armchair scientists) thorium reactors but we need power today, not in 2035. Why pour billions into unproven technology when we have proven technology that gets cheaper every year. Additionally, Lazard just put out their LCOE report for 2019 and for the first time new-build unsubsidzed wind can be cheaper than the marginal costs of a fully paid-off nuclear plant.
  - Accujack 7y ago
    There are designs that are new or newer that have only been implemented at small scale, or in a single test instance. Molten salt reactors, traveling wave designs, even thorium energy amplifiers. You're right, though, we need new reactors now, which is why we're looking toward the designs already tested. It's true that no significant research has been done for decades and no new designs approved for commercial use, but that's something that can be changed, and changed quickly. In any case, we don't have a choice... it's renewables+nuclear or renewables+a cut in standard of living for the world... or else climate change we can't survive. Again... we're not substituting nuclear for renewables. That wouldn't work any more than substituting renewables for nuclear. Neither one is enough on its own.

Accujack 7y ago

The cost of building a plant with old technology is high. That's because it's been over-regulated and because it's old tech. Newer plant designs will be cheaper to build and simpler. They will need to be regulated differently as a matter of course because they're fundamentally different designs. What you're saying here is that building a 1960s nuclear power plant design with modern regulation is expensive, which is true, but that's like saying that driving a 1955 Ford Thunderbird is expensive when compared to a Tesla S. That's true, but you're comparing apples and rocks, here.

apcragg 7y ago
Which newer plants? I'm still paying for the cost over-runs at Vogtle here in Georgia which is a 'modern' plant. Granted, Westinghouse went bankrupt but Wind/Solar builds don't have the same risks concentrated in a single manufacturer. Sure, we have some research reactors which use (the now meme'd by armchair scientists) thorium reactors but we need power today, not in 2035. Why pour billions into unproven technology when we have proven technology that gets cheaper every year. Additionally, Lazard just put out their LCOE report for 2019 and for the first time new-build unsubsidzed wind can be cheaper than the marginal costs of a fully paid-off nuclear plant.
- Accujack 7y ago
  There are designs that are new or newer that have only been implemented at small scale, or in a single test instance. Molten salt reactors, traveling wave designs, even thorium energy amplifiers. You're right, though, we need new reactors now, which is why we're looking toward the designs already tested. It's true that no significant research has been done for decades and no new designs approved for commercial use, but that's something that can be changed, and changed quickly. In any case, we don't have a choice... it's renewables+nuclear or renewables+a cut in standard of living for the world... or else climate change we can't survive. Again... we're not substituting nuclear for renewables. That wouldn't work any more than substituting renewables for nuclear. Neither one is enough on its own.