4 ms·

The argument here is that we need to streamline the regulatory environment for nuclear, invest in it, and convince people not to fear it, if we hope to make a r

The argument here is that we need to streamline the regulatory environment for nuclear, invest in it, and convince people not to fear it, if we hope to make a real dent in climate change. Solar and wind are great technologies, but they cannot be the sole basis for a power grid without positing some new energy storage technology that does not exist today and for which there is nothing on the horizon. Nuclear technology has stagnated horribly because of the fears. Even the newest reactors are using old designs because it's impossible to move forward with new ones.

njarboe 7y ago
We could have used our educational system in the US to teach people about radiation so they would not be so afraid of it. That would have been great and could have paved the way to the use of nuclear power about 30-50 years later.
- m0zg 7y ago
  I'd like to point out that the current extremely paranoid (and expensive) regulatory environment was brought to you by people who were "taught" about radiation during the cold war. I was taught of the dangers of radiation in the 80s. I kind of just translated it into ways to protect myself against alpha, beta and gamma, but I can guarantee most of my school mates only recall that gamma radiation penetrates a meter thick slab of concrete, and don't want any part of it anywhere near, even at the background levels they are already experiencing when flying to their vacations. These same people also don't realize that a coal fired power plant emits about 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant does, and if asked which they prefer would prefer coal. Even if you tell them that coal is more radioactive, most of them will not change their mind. You have too generous a view of the ability of an average person to understand and think rationally about such concepts. In the absence of understanding, fear takes its place. This is TL;DR of why nuclear power stations aren't profitable in the US today.
  - beat 7y ago
    Math matters. Nuclear energy is not substantially cheaper in other countries than it is in the US (feel free to provide cites otherwise) - even countries like China where environmentalist rabble-rousers can find themselves in prison. This suggests to me that the regulations for the ignorant paranoid treehuggers are not actually the problem.
    - m0zg 7y ago
      Nuclear is one third the cost of gas per TWh in Korea: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-905a-447a5056d2e6/Comparative-LCOEs-in-4-Countries-NEW.jpg.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-90... Clearly it can be done. And environmental rabble-rousers are religious zealots at this point - devoid almost completely of rational thought. The most environmentally responsible option at this point (and in the foreseeable future) is nuclear.
      - beat 7y ago
        Don't talk like a religious zealot. What is the cost of gas in Korea, vs the cost of gas in the US? We're the largest producer in the world. They have almost no gas of their own, and must import. addendum: I find it striking that this thread is full of people telling me that nuclear costs are high in the US because of the treehuggers, and it's so cheap in France, but according to your chart, nuclear power is actually cheaper in the US than it is in France.
        m0zg 7y ago
        Personally, I think we should stop considering hydrocarbons as a viable power source in the long term. So it doesn't really matter how much gas costs - it should be replaced by a clean energy source regardless of cost. And we should make it economically viable for nuclear (the only currently viable replacement) to do so through a combination of R&D and changes in regulations. Knowing that this will be deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of putting up an argument, I will point out that I am not arguing for more lax _safety_ regulations. Just for removing the fossilized crap which doesn't make much sense from the safety standpoint anymore, and costs billions in compliance costs, making new nuclear construction untenable.
labawi 7y ago
> Solar and wind ... cannot be the sole basis for a power grid without positing some new energy storage .. for which there is nothing on the horizon. In investment and projects true, in technology no. It's just a bit expensive and politics.. Useful technologies (dramatic reduction of required storage): * HV DC long-range transmissions (Russia) * offshore wind (Hornsea) * load scheduling (home dual tarrifs, remote-managed water heaters, regulated aluminum smelting, upcoming vehicle charging, ..) * plain old overprovisioning Slow Storage: * electrolytic hydrogen stored in caverns (estimated cca 40% efficiency) * automated train (cars) loaded with rocks on a slope (85% eff.) Fast storage: * batteries (Tesla) * flywheels Not that useful for scaling: * pumped / regulated hydro - currently very important but scaling limited by geography.

njarboe 7y ago

We could have used our educational system in the US to teach people about radiation so they would not be so afraid of it. That would have been great and could have paved the way to the use of nuclear power about 30-50 years later.

m0zg 7y ago
I'd like to point out that the current extremely paranoid (and expensive) regulatory environment was brought to you by people who were "taught" about radiation during the cold war. I was taught of the dangers of radiation in the 80s. I kind of just translated it into ways to protect myself against alpha, beta and gamma, but I can guarantee most of my school mates only recall that gamma radiation penetrates a meter thick slab of concrete, and don't want any part of it anywhere near, even at the background levels they are already experiencing when flying to their vacations. These same people also don't realize that a coal fired power plant emits about 100x more radiation than a nuclear plant does, and if asked which they prefer would prefer coal. Even if you tell them that coal is more radioactive, most of them will not change their mind. You have too generous a view of the ability of an average person to understand and think rationally about such concepts. In the absence of understanding, fear takes its place. This is TL;DR of why nuclear power stations aren't profitable in the US today.
- beat 7y ago
  Math matters. Nuclear energy is not substantially cheaper in other countries than it is in the US (feel free to provide cites otherwise) - even countries like China where environmentalist rabble-rousers can find themselves in prison. This suggests to me that the regulations for the ignorant paranoid treehuggers are not actually the problem.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    Nuclear is one third the cost of gas per TWh in Korea: https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-905a-447a5056d2e6/Comparative-LCOEs-in-4-Countries-NEW.jpg.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-90... Clearly it can be done. And environmental rabble-rousers are religious zealots at this point - devoid almost completely of rational thought. The most environmentally responsible option at this point (and in the foreseeable future) is nuclear.
    - beat 7y ago
      Don't talk like a religious zealot. What is the cost of gas in Korea, vs the cost of gas in the US? We're the largest producer in the world. They have almost no gas of their own, and must import. addendum: I find it striking that this thread is full of people telling me that nuclear costs are high in the US because of the treehuggers, and it's so cheap in France, but according to your chart, nuclear power is actually cheaper in the US than it is in France.
      - m0zg 7y ago
        Personally, I think we should stop considering hydrocarbons as a viable power source in the long term. So it doesn't really matter how much gas costs - it should be replaced by a clean energy source regardless of cost. And we should make it economically viable for nuclear (the only currently viable replacement) to do so through a combination of R&D and changes in regulations. Knowing that this will be deliberately misinterpreted for the sake of putting up an argument, I will point out that I am not arguing for more lax _safety_ regulations. Just for removing the fossilized crap which doesn't make much sense from the safety standpoint anymore, and costs billions in compliance costs, making new nuclear construction untenable.

labawi 7y ago

> Solar and wind ... cannot be the sole basis for a power grid without positing some new energy storage .. for which there is nothing on the horizon. In investment and projects true, in technology no. It's just a bit expensive and politics.. Useful technologies (dramatic reduction of required storage): * HV DC long-range transmissions (Russia) * offshore wind (Hornsea) * load scheduling (home dual tarrifs, remote-managed water heaters, regulated aluminum smelting, upcoming vehicle charging, ..) * plain old overprovisioning Slow Storage: * electrolytic hydrogen stored in caverns (estimated cca 40% efficiency) * automated train (cars) loaded with rocks on a slope (85% eff.) Fast storage: * batteries (Tesla) * flywheels Not that useful for scaling: * pumped / regulated hydro - currently very important but scaling limited by geography.