4 ms·

Support for nuclear power has become my acid-test. If somebody is serious about making urgent and effective change, fission has to be on the table. Volume is t

Support for nuclear power has become my acid-test. If somebody is serious about making urgent and effective change, fission has to be on the table. Volume is the key to price - we need an internationally-vetted medium-sized design, with a supply chain that can crank out hundreds of complete "just add concrete" systems per year. As well as improving up-front costs, a ubiquitous design makes training and maintenance easier. This should improve the operation of these systems safer and cheaper.

thepete2 7y ago
Ditto. Many people I know are opposed to nuclear power for safety reasons (Chernobyl and Fukushima). But my understanding is that modern designs are an order of magnitude safer.
pfdietz 7y ago
Support for CO2 taxes is my acid-test. If a nuclear advocate uses a climate argument, but doesn't support a CO2 tax, they're just hopping on a bandwagon hoping for a handout. BTW, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear construction in the US to be competitive with natural gas. Do you support that high a CO2 tax?
- trasneoir 7y ago
  I'd quibble with the price point - economies of scale can reduce the cost of nuclear pretty dramatically. That said, I've got no problem with it in principle. Pricing externalities properly seems the simplest way to solve the tragedy of the commons, but it's complicated in this case by the fact that climate is a _global_ commons. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would make it a more manageable political lift. AFAIK the US is the only country to have "solved" the bigger political problem of long-term nuclear waste storage?
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    The nuclear waste disposal problem is a can that is very kickable down the road. The "solution" in the US, and I think elsewhere, is (after ten years or so of cooling) just put the spent fuel in dry casks. This is simple and cheap and safe, and does not foreclose any future options for dealing with it. One might criticize this for foisting the problem on future generations, but I suggest this is a truly minor problem compared to others we're foisting on them, and they'll be in a better position to deal with it that we are. It would be a poor solution compared to immediate reprocessing if we lived in a High Nuclear scenario where uranium was running low, but we don't live in that world.

thepete2 7y ago

Ditto. Many people I know are opposed to nuclear power for safety reasons (Chernobyl and Fukushima). But my understanding is that modern designs are an order of magnitude safer.

pfdietz 7y ago

Support for CO2 taxes is my acid-test. If a nuclear advocate uses a climate argument, but doesn't support a CO2 tax, they're just hopping on a bandwagon hoping for a handout. BTW, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear construction in the US to be competitive with natural gas. Do you support that high a CO2 tax?

trasneoir 7y ago
I'd quibble with the price point - economies of scale can reduce the cost of nuclear pretty dramatically. That said, I've got no problem with it in principle. Pricing externalities properly seems the simplest way to solve the tragedy of the commons, but it's complicated in this case by the fact that climate is a _global_ commons. A revenue-neutral carbon tax would make it a more manageable political lift. AFAIK the US is the only country to have "solved" the bigger political problem of long-term nuclear waste storage?
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The nuclear waste disposal problem is a can that is very kickable down the road. The "solution" in the US, and I think elsewhere, is (after ten years or so of cooling) just put the spent fuel in dry casks. This is simple and cheap and safe, and does not foreclose any future options for dealing with it. One might criticize this for foisting the problem on future generations, but I suggest this is a truly minor problem compared to others we're foisting on them, and they'll be in a better position to deal with it that we are. It would be a poor solution compared to immediate reprocessing if we lived in a High Nuclear scenario where uranium was running low, but we don't live in that world.