5 ms·

unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear... Is there any chance that won't be the case? Has the cost of nuclear ever not wildly increase

unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear... Is there any chance that won't be the case? Has the cost of nuclear ever not wildly increased, let alone decreased?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
The recent high construction costs for nuclear have a lot to do with lack of scale. If you only build one or two reactors over a decade you have to amortize all the first-time construction mistakes over that small number. If you build a hundred, you may make mistakes that require expensive reworks on the first one or two but not on the third or fourth and certainly not on the fiftieth. The other major contributor is regulatory inefficiency. That's fixable at the stroke of a pen given the political will to do something about it. Meanwhile people look at the exponential curve for renewables as if it's going to last forever, but they never do in the end. The question is how far from the end we are, but nobody has a crystal ball. Which is why we should hedge our bets. Build both. If people figure out how to make it work with only wind and solar then we paid some money for insurance. If they don't, we're still prepared. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  We've heard about these small-scale reactors for decades. Various militaries have used them for decades. We have lots of eccentric multibillionaires now, many of whom require reliable power in remote locations. Why are there no small-scale reactors offered for sale for civilian use?
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Gates is behind TerraPower which is supposed to have something like that Real Soon Now, but they got a bit delayed because they originally had a partnership with China which fell victim to the trade war, so now they're regrouping. But the answer in general is much the same as it is for larger reactors -- you need a sympathetic host country whose regulators aren't captured by fossil fuel industry lobbyists trying to destroy you. It's a political problem, not a technical one.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      If he could afford to bribe all the necessary parties in China I'm sure that some other nation could be found as well. Would that even be required? Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, where naval reactors are developed, is in a suburb of Pittsburgh (surprisingly, it appears that Cyrus K. Bettis was no relation to Jerome) and has always been run by defense contractors. Lots of nuclear facilities in USA (e.g. the one in Paducah where my grandfather was exposed to radiation) have been hazards to surrounding communities. The whole point of these micronukes is that there is less nuclear fuel involved. I'm just not seeing the obstacle here, which makes me suspect the real obstacle is as yet unmentioned.

unless solar and wind decrease in cost much faster than nuclear... Is there any chance that won't be the case? Has the cost of nuclear ever not wildly increased, let alone decreased?

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

The recent high construction costs for nuclear have a lot to do with lack of scale. If you only build one or two reactors over a decade you have to amortize all the first-time construction mistakes over that small number. If you build a hundred, you may make mistakes that require expensive reworks on the first one or two but not on the third or fourth and certainly not on the fiftieth. The other major contributor is regulatory inefficiency. That's fixable at the stroke of a pen given the political will to do something about it. Meanwhile people look at the exponential curve for renewables as if it's going to last forever, but they never do in the end. The question is how far from the end we are, but nobody has a crystal ball. Which is why we should hedge our bets. Build both. If people figure out how to make it work with only wind and solar then we paid some money for insurance. If they don't, we're still prepared. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

jessaustin 7y ago
We've heard about these small-scale reactors for decades. Various militaries have used them for decades. We have lots of eccentric multibillionaires now, many of whom require reliable power in remote locations. Why are there no small-scale reactors offered for sale for civilian use?
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Gates is behind TerraPower which is supposed to have something like that Real Soon Now, but they got a bit delayed because they originally had a partnership with China which fell victim to the trade war, so now they're regrouping. But the answer in general is much the same as it is for larger reactors -- you need a sympathetic host country whose regulators aren't captured by fossil fuel industry lobbyists trying to destroy you. It's a political problem, not a technical one.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    If he could afford to bribe all the necessary parties in China I'm sure that some other nation could be found as well. Would that even be required? Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory, where naval reactors are developed, is in a suburb of Pittsburgh (surprisingly, it appears that Cyrus K. Bettis was no relation to Jerome) and has always been run by defense contractors. Lots of nuclear facilities in USA (e.g. the one in Paducah where my grandfather was exposed to radiation) have been hazards to surrounding communities. The whole point of these micronukes is that there is less nuclear fuel involved. I'm just not seeing the obstacle here, which makes me suspect the real obstacle is as yet unmentioned.