6 ms·

>Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. This is t

>Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. This is true and fully agreed. Home reactors are not really feasible or even a good idea. >Even ultra cost efficient full scale powerplants are a money losing proposition without huge subsidies. They are being squeezed between extremely cheap renewables, low cost natural gas, and rapidly advancing storage technology. Plants are expensive due to the regulation and insurance making them that way. Safety with nuclear is obviously paramount, but political and social pressure has expanded a lot of the requirements to quite a high degree. Additionally, renewable are also subsidized quite a lot and are not always viable in all locales. Storage tech is good for all forms of power generation. >Which is why nuclear was 17.6% of global electricity generation in the late 90’s but has fallen to 10% in 2019. Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet.

Jedd 7y ago
> Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet. This is a common trope. I can't work out where you live, but I do often see this line of reasoning put forward by residents of the USA, who overlook the fact that 'the feds' don't regulate what happens in the other 95% of the planet, and yet other parts of the world are equally disinterested in building more nuclear fission plants. It may be that the problems -- federal / national governments red tape, NIMBY lawsuits, local gov / state gov / provinces / councils, 'fearmongering', etc -- are common and similar everywhere, but this seems prima facie unlikely, certainly not demonstrated.
- TheCoelacanth 7y ago
  But there are places with much larger portions of their power supplied from nuclear plants, e.g. France, with >70% nuclear power.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    Yup, undeniably France is an interesting outlier. As I understand it, the bulk of their reactors were produced over a relatively short boom period of construction, and their projected EOL's were consequently going to coincide -- the number of safety incidents, ageing designs, costs of attending to both, public opinion swaying against, resulted in the relatively recent decisions to try to reduce the reliance on fission. But, even so, this speaks to my point -- in countries with a positive history of nuclear fission, and little 'red tape' to stall new builds, they're still moving away from it.
  - Retric 7y ago
    That’s incorrect. France generation is over 70% nuclear power, but in 2018 exported 86.3 TWh mostly nuclear and imported 26TWh mostly non nuclear. So they actually use less than 70% nuclear power. This is important because of how hard it is to match nuclear generation with demand resulting in a 77% capacity factor vs ~90% in the US nuclear industry even with all those exports. In other words they built enough nuclear to cover well over 80% of demand, but only use ~60% internally. They are also looking to significantly reduce nuclear production. Closing up to 17 reactors by 2025. https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...
- mabbo 7y ago
  http://www.ieso.ca/power-data http://www.ieso.ca/power-data Ontario sits at about 2/3 nuclear. We have for a long time. And our electricity is relatively cheap.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    I was going to point out that Ontario, at 15m, accounts for 0.002% of the population, and suggest it may be a statistical blip. But -- and thanks for the link, it's fascinating -- diving into that page raises some questions. The nuclear component is very steady at 11MW, which I suppose is a function of the technology, to provide a reliable base load. Nuclear fission accounts for 12MW -- while Hydro seems to consistently provide about a third that figure, with wind averaging just over 1MW, but peaking up to 4MW. Canada has 19 nuclear fission power plants, with all but one being in Ontario. Seemingly [1] several were / will be shutdown, as refurbishment is too expensive, and no plans to construct new plants in the province. Storage of spent fuel is expected to cost ~$30B ... but that project hasn't found a site yet, and that's a projected figure circa 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada

Jedd 7y ago

> Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet. This is a common trope. I can't work out where you live, but I do often see this line of reasoning put forward by residents of the USA, who overlook the fact that 'the feds' don't regulate what happens in the other 95% of the planet, and yet other parts of the world are equally disinterested in building more nuclear fission plants. It may be that the problems -- federal / national governments red tape, NIMBY lawsuits, local gov / state gov / provinces / councils, 'fearmongering', etc -- are common and similar everywhere, but this seems prima facie unlikely, certainly not demonstrated.

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
But there are places with much larger portions of their power supplied from nuclear plants, e.g. France, with >70% nuclear power.
- Jedd 7y ago
  Yup, undeniably France is an interesting outlier. As I understand it, the bulk of their reactors were produced over a relatively short boom period of construction, and their projected EOL's were consequently going to coincide -- the number of safety incidents, ageing designs, costs of attending to both, public opinion swaying against, resulted in the relatively recent decisions to try to reduce the reliance on fission. But, even so, this speaks to my point -- in countries with a positive history of nuclear fission, and little 'red tape' to stall new builds, they're still moving away from it.
- Retric 7y ago
  That’s incorrect. France generation is over 70% nuclear power, but in 2018 exported 86.3 TWh mostly nuclear and imported 26TWh mostly non nuclear. So they actually use less than 70% nuclear power. This is important because of how hard it is to match nuclear generation with demand resulting in a 77% capacity factor vs ~90% in the US nuclear industry even with all those exports. In other words they built enough nuclear to cover well over 80% of demand, but only use ~60% internally. They are also looking to significantly reduce nuclear production. Closing up to 17 reactors by 2025. https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...
mabbo 7y ago
http://www.ieso.ca/power-data http://www.ieso.ca/power-data Ontario sits at about 2/3 nuclear. We have for a long time. And our electricity is relatively cheap.
- Jedd 7y ago
  I was going to point out that Ontario, at 15m, accounts for 0.002% of the population, and suggest it may be a statistical blip. But -- and thanks for the link, it's fascinating -- diving into that page raises some questions. The nuclear component is very steady at 11MW, which I suppose is a function of the technology, to provide a reliable base load. Nuclear fission accounts for 12MW -- while Hydro seems to consistently provide about a third that figure, with wind averaging just over 1MW, but peaking up to 4MW. Canada has 19 nuclear fission power plants, with all but one being in Ontario. Seemingly [1] several were / will be shutdown, as refurbishment is too expensive, and no plans to construct new plants in the province. Storage of spent fuel is expected to cost ~$30B ... but that project hasn't found a site yet, and that's a projected figure circa 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada