4 ms·

>> It’s not climate regulations. It’s economics. In a simplified view this is true, but they are also irreducible; We'll never reach any meaningful action if w

>> It’s not climate regulations. It’s economics. In a simplified view this is true, but they are also irreducible; We'll never reach any meaningful action if we don't make it economically advantageous to pursue alternatives that "just so happen" to be climate positive. That would be akin to getting someone to exercise solely because "it's good for you". This is largely if not almost entirely caused by natural gas prices that make variable cost close to zero; it's essentially a waste product in producing oil for much of the country. The challenge is getting it from wellhead to consumer, but power plants are different than individual consumers. It powers more than a 1/3 currently (vs < 10% wind/solar) and for much of current coal is a very easy substitute. If we could ever get to on-site electricity generation (with the byproduct of heating homes and businesses) we could make huge reductions in pollution and gains in efficiency. Increased nuclear would be a big win for the environment as well but is a social-political untouchable for a variety of real and made-up reasons.

sampo 7y ago
> Increased nuclear would be a big win for the environment as well but is a social-political untouchable for a variety of real and made-up reasons. When more and more people will start to take the actuality of climate change seriously, either through education or – increasingly – from personal experience, nuclear will become more touchable.
- munk-a 7y ago
  I think the touchability of nuclear energy was quite negatively impacted by Fukushima, and it's just going to take a while to get reasonable people on board with the idea that that model of reactor was far out of date. There are the folks that just shout "No nukes ever" and they can't be won over, but we're got flat earthers and anti-vaxers, so not everybody can be reasonable.
  - thephyber 7y ago
    Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are rare but high impact ("black swan") events. Just like terrorism, it causes a strong imprint on the minds of some people which seemingly overpowers their ability to rationally weigh observed statistics and make balanced choices. I want to know why we can't even seem to build the few (2-3) which have started construction, but the projects are so massive that they constantly run over budget and behind timelines[1]. Until we fix that issue, I don't want the precious resources of PG&E's corpse to make risky bets on massive nuclear infra projects. It just seems like throwing lots of money at contractors who no longer know how to make massive projects on time or built to architectural spec. I would, however, like to see a lot more R&D on small, lower-temperature reactors, possibly ones that reuse spent fuel rods from larger traditional nuclear power reactors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...
    - robocat 7y ago
      "black swan" events - avoid this term as it is super confusing. Black swans were thought to be rare, then they discovered that they were common in the Southern hemisphere. Black swans are definitely not rare (there are many hundreds within a few kilometres of my home).
      - nl 7y ago
        The term "Black Swan" comes from the Taleb book and it refers to something previously thought to be impossible. Black swans were thought to be impossible (they had never been seen in the northern hemisphere), then they were discovered. The fail-safes for nuclear reactors were all thought to be invulnerable until they weren't.
  - robryan 7y ago
    If nuclear could be bought online with the same kind of investment profile as solar and wind I doubt the political aspect would be anywhere near as big a factor. Even without the politics someone building nuclear is being forced to make a very big and long term bet with a lot of uncertainty on how it will perform across its lifetime compared with future innovation in renewables.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    People always bring up that it was out of date reactors that had issues. But a large number of the operating reactors in the world are these out of date models, and newer safer models are prohibitively expensive to build, are still unlikely to be 100% safe (what have humans ever built that never fails), and leaves the problem of nuclear waste. It might be that nuclear power is a sensible choice (at least short term) in the face of climate change, but there are real risks and the claim that opposing nuclear power is akin to being a flat-earther is massive stretch. I'd be interested in whether your position is that there will be no further nuclear accidents, or that the occurrence of future nuclear accidents is worth it.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      Oh my position is that continuing to use tech that was pioneered in the 1960s and has notable safety shortcomings has the possibility to poison the well on a safe and green energy source forever. I think the solution to this is the deployment of small scale reactors in areas like the midwest where power loss due to distance traveled is a serious matter - close down the gigantic old chimney reactors since people look at those and instantly think Chernobyl. And, before another Fukushima happens, let's get a big ol' pile of new regulations on these aging reactors or possibly just nationalize them and shut them down. It's really just a matter of time until another nationally noticeable accident happens, and more local ones aren't infrequent, especially runoff and watersource pollution. Vermont Yankee[1] got into big trouble for this a while back (specifically tritium leaks) and the decommissioning trust had, of course, been underfunded. Our old gen nukes and operators cutting corners on safety are the biggest obstacles to having new gen nukes. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P...
- adrianN 7y ago
  The problem is that it's way too late to start a nuclear buildout if we want to stay below 1.5° (probably even for 2°). Nuclear power plants take a decade to build at least. Our emission budget won't last that long.
  - simonh 7y ago
    That's certainly a problem, but whatever we start doing now is going to take a decade plus to start making a difference. That's no reason to sit on our hands. It's not as though if we can't keep warming below 2 degrees we should just give up.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      The benefit of wind and solar is that they allow for a linear reduction in CO2 starting pretty much immediately. Nuclear otoh doesn't do anything for us until the plants are online. It's probably good to start building nuclear plants now, but one must be very careful not to advocate for them as replacements for an ambitious rollout of wind and solar.
      - simonh 7y ago
        Oh I agree completely, but I think we are still going to need the base load Nuclear can provide in 10 years. We’re not going to phase out coal and gas in that time frame anyway.
  - travisporter 7y ago
    Noob question but why the heck does it take so long to build a nuclear plant even in 2019? That’s longer than some FDA drug development
    - cglace 7y ago
      Sometimes they are never completed https://static.theintercept.com/amp/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy.html https://static.theintercept.com/amp/south-caroline-green-new...
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Cost cost cost. Give me an example of new build nuclear that is even close to the cost of solar plus storage or natural gas. The only place it can happen is China, which forces through infrastructure projects that are capitally intensive.

sampo 7y ago

> Increased nuclear would be a big win for the environment as well but is a social-political untouchable for a variety of real and made-up reasons. When more and more people will start to take the actuality of climate change seriously, either through education or – increasingly – from personal experience, nuclear will become more touchable.

munk-a 7y ago
I think the touchability of nuclear energy was quite negatively impacted by Fukushima, and it's just going to take a while to get reasonable people on board with the idea that that model of reactor was far out of date. There are the folks that just shout "No nukes ever" and they can't be won over, but we're got flat earthers and anti-vaxers, so not everybody can be reasonable.
- thephyber 7y ago
  Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. They are rare but high impact ("black swan") events. Just like terrorism, it causes a strong imprint on the minds of some people which seemingly overpowers their ability to rationally weigh observed statistics and make balanced choices. I want to know why we can't even seem to build the few (2-3) which have started construction, but the projects are so massive that they constantly run over budget and behind timelines[1]. Until we fix that issue, I don't want the precious resources of PG&E's corpse to make risky bets on massive nuclear infra projects. It just seems like throwing lots of money at contractors who no longer know how to make massive projects on time or built to architectural spec. I would, however, like to see a lot more R&D on small, lower-temperature reactors, possibly ones that reuse spent fuel rods from larger traditional nuclear power reactors. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-pro...
  - robocat 7y ago
    "black swan" events - avoid this term as it is super confusing. Black swans were thought to be rare, then they discovered that they were common in the Southern hemisphere. Black swans are definitely not rare (there are many hundreds within a few kilometres of my home).
    - nl 7y ago
      The term "Black Swan" comes from the Taleb book and it refers to something previously thought to be impossible. Black swans were thought to be impossible (they had never been seen in the northern hemisphere), then they were discovered. The fail-safes for nuclear reactors were all thought to be invulnerable until they weren't.
- robryan 7y ago
  If nuclear could be bought online with the same kind of investment profile as solar and wind I doubt the political aspect would be anywhere near as big a factor. Even without the politics someone building nuclear is being forced to make a very big and long term bet with a lot of uncertainty on how it will perform across its lifetime compared with future innovation in renewables.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  People always bring up that it was out of date reactors that had issues. But a large number of the operating reactors in the world are these out of date models, and newer safer models are prohibitively expensive to build, are still unlikely to be 100% safe (what have humans ever built that never fails), and leaves the problem of nuclear waste. It might be that nuclear power is a sensible choice (at least short term) in the face of climate change, but there are real risks and the claim that opposing nuclear power is akin to being a flat-earther is massive stretch. I'd be interested in whether your position is that there will be no further nuclear accidents, or that the occurrence of future nuclear accidents is worth it.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    Oh my position is that continuing to use tech that was pioneered in the 1960s and has notable safety shortcomings has the possibility to poison the well on a safe and green energy source forever. I think the solution to this is the deployment of small scale reactors in areas like the midwest where power loss due to distance traveled is a serious matter - close down the gigantic old chimney reactors since people look at those and instantly think Chernobyl. And, before another Fukushima happens, let's get a big ol' pile of new regulations on these aging reactors or possibly just nationalize them and shut them down. It's really just a matter of time until another nationally noticeable accident happens, and more local ones aren't infrequent, especially runoff and watersource pollution. Vermont Yankee[1] got into big trouble for this a while back (specifically tritium leaks) and the decommissioning trust had, of course, been underfunded. Our old gen nukes and operators cutting corners on safety are the biggest obstacles to having new gen nukes. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Yankee_Nuclear_Power_P...
adrianN 7y ago
The problem is that it's way too late to start a nuclear buildout if we want to stay below 1.5° (probably even for 2°). Nuclear power plants take a decade to build at least. Our emission budget won't last that long.
- simonh 7y ago
  That's certainly a problem, but whatever we start doing now is going to take a decade plus to start making a difference. That's no reason to sit on our hands. It's not as though if we can't keep warming below 2 degrees we should just give up.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    The benefit of wind and solar is that they allow for a linear reduction in CO2 starting pretty much immediately. Nuclear otoh doesn't do anything for us until the plants are online. It's probably good to start building nuclear plants now, but one must be very careful not to advocate for them as replacements for an ambitious rollout of wind and solar.
    - simonh 7y ago
      Oh I agree completely, but I think we are still going to need the base load Nuclear can provide in 10 years. We’re not going to phase out coal and gas in that time frame anyway.
- travisporter 7y ago
  Noob question but why the heck does it take so long to build a nuclear plant even in 2019? That’s longer than some FDA drug development
  - cglace 7y ago
    Sometimes they are never completed https://static.theintercept.com/amp/south-caroline-green-new-deal-south-carolina-nuclear-energy.html https://static.theintercept.com/amp/south-caroline-green-new...
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Cost cost cost. Give me an example of new build nuclear that is even close to the cost of solar plus storage or natural gas. The only place it can happen is China, which forces through infrastructure projects that are capitally intensive.