3 ms·

I am generally in favour of nuclear. But objectively a nuclear reactor is massively more complex than say a turbine or solar panel. It is harder to mass produ

by 7952 7y ago

I am generally in favour of nuclear. But objectively a nuclear reactor is massively more complex than say a turbine or solar panel. It is harder to mass produce, more difficult to model, requires more skilled workers, and needs higher levels of security. It has stringent safety requirements as a result of radioactivity. All of that has to cost money. Nuclear physics is difficult and we should not underestimate the challenges. And we do have to make these things work in risk averse capitalist democracy. A perfect technology that you can't get consent for is useless. We are trying to generate energy, not build a techno utopia. It is not an academic question, but a practical one. Renewables wins because it is highly contentious but NOT difficult to build. Nuclear fails because it is highly contentious AND difficult to build Also, the storage debate leaves out interconnectors. That lets you use excess power now which is cheaper than storage.

koheripbal 7y ago
There are some incorrect arguments here - as well as some valid ones. You claim that a reactor is more complex than a turbine (I assume you mean a wind turbine) or a solar panel. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because a reactor provides 24x7x365 baseload power, whereas solar and wind would require MASSIVE storage facilities to be comparable. That is both cost-inefficient and complex. You claim the required number of highly skilled workers is high. Well, is that really true on a PER GWh basis? Reactors generate on average 1GW of power. Solar plants generate 50MW of power, at a highly variable rate. Even excluding the storage requirements, nuclear power likely employs fewer people. You claim that nuclear physics is difficult and complex and therefore costs money. A refined process and established international design can remove these bottlenecks. In the same way that we have immensely complex silicon wafer chips with tens of millions of 9 nano meter scale transistors in them - for only hundreds of dollars. You claim that safety costs money. That's true. But is it an unreasonable amount of money for the amount of power we're providing? A lot of the costs are borne from issues we cause ourselves. The Nevada storage facility is capable of holding literally ALL of the nuclear waste in America. Yet is remains closed because of fearmongering politics. (I think) You claim that storage can be largely solved by national interconnects. But if you look at the massive power distribution systems in Northern Canada - they lose around 25% of the power in transmission alone, going only a fraction of the way that a NATIONAL power transmission grid would require. The problem with renewables remains the storage problem. There are few practical solutions on the scale that are needed, and I find that most anti-nuclear pro-renewable advocates are simply not doing the math.
- 7952 7y ago
  All these kind of comparisons are apples to oranges. If you ignore every advantage of one technology then the other will look good by comparison. The best comparison is actual industry performance in deploying new installed capacity. Canada has some ridiculous geographic challenges to overcome. Transmission losses are far lower on grids in more densely populated areas. And HVDC/Ultra high voltage AC give more options. And anyway, what's wrong with wasting 25%? There are obviously some good reasons to do that. Also, a relatively short interconnector can be useful. It can be used to satisfy demand in a neighbouring area. In turn that area can generate less or can export more to its neighbours. The power has a knock on effect across a much larger area. But the great thing is that they are not monolithic. It benefits everyone, and can be a modular element of a larger system. This even works out well for energy storage. A pumped hydro site in a mountainous area can benefit people across the other side of a country.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    Tightly packed grids don't help because the generation vs consumption disparity is across hundreds or thousands of miles. HVDC and Ultra HVAC sounds nice on paper, but the reasons the industry doesn't use them today are numerous. Again, the grid needs to provide 100% capacity 99.95% of the time. Renewables simply cannot handle that without massive storage that is still only theoretical - and often infeasible. Pumped hydro is a great example of a theoretical storage concept that would only work in a small number of places, and yet still would be a major undertaking with large losses in efficiency. These are just pie-in-the-sky ideas, or flat out unrealistic.
    - 7952 7y ago
      You complain about minsinformation and then say stuff like that. HVDC is very widely deployed for interconnectors and grid connections. And there are >20 UHV lines in China, many over 1,000 km long. This is not pie-in-the-sky but physics. By using appropriate technology you reduce tranmsision losses and/or cost. Also consumption and demand are already very spread out in a traditional grid. A generator can go offline and the power is sourced from another location. In fact this is essential for nuclear stations as large generators can fail rapily. I agree that pumped hydro has limited value, and nothing is a panacea on its own. But most of the nuclear states actually have significant deployed pumped hydro capacity. It is a complementary technology. When nuclear power stations fail they can leave a big hole in generating capacity. Pumped hydro can deliver >1GW in a short amount of time and fill that hole. Otherwise you need to maintain more spinning reserve.

by 7952 7y ago

koheripbal 7y ago

There are some incorrect arguments here - as well as some valid ones. You claim that a reactor is more complex than a turbine (I assume you mean a wind turbine) or a solar panel. This isn't an apples to apples comparison because a reactor provides 24x7x365 baseload power, whereas solar and wind would require MASSIVE storage facilities to be comparable. That is both cost-inefficient and complex. You claim the required number of highly skilled workers is high. Well, is that really true on a PER GWh basis? Reactors generate on average 1GW of power. Solar plants generate 50MW of power, at a highly variable rate. Even excluding the storage requirements, nuclear power likely employs fewer people. You claim that nuclear physics is difficult and complex and therefore costs money. A refined process and established international design can remove these bottlenecks. In the same way that we have immensely complex silicon wafer chips with tens of millions of 9 nano meter scale transistors in them - for only hundreds of dollars. You claim that safety costs money. That's true. But is it an unreasonable amount of money for the amount of power we're providing? A lot of the costs are borne from issues we cause ourselves. The Nevada storage facility is capable of holding literally ALL of the nuclear waste in America. Yet is remains closed because of fearmongering politics. (I think) You claim that storage can be largely solved by national interconnects. But if you look at the massive power distribution systems in Northern Canada - they lose around 25% of the power in transmission alone, going only a fraction of the way that a NATIONAL power transmission grid would require. The problem with renewables remains the storage problem. There are few practical solutions on the scale that are needed, and I find that most anti-nuclear pro-renewable advocates are simply not doing the math.

7952 7y ago
All these kind of comparisons are apples to oranges. If you ignore every advantage of one technology then the other will look good by comparison. The best comparison is actual industry performance in deploying new installed capacity. Canada has some ridiculous geographic challenges to overcome. Transmission losses are far lower on grids in more densely populated areas. And HVDC/Ultra high voltage AC give more options. And anyway, what's wrong with wasting 25%? There are obviously some good reasons to do that. Also, a relatively short interconnector can be useful. It can be used to satisfy demand in a neighbouring area. In turn that area can generate less or can export more to its neighbours. The power has a knock on effect across a much larger area. But the great thing is that they are not monolithic. It benefits everyone, and can be a modular element of a larger system. This even works out well for energy storage. A pumped hydro site in a mountainous area can benefit people across the other side of a country.
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Tightly packed grids don't help because the generation vs consumption disparity is across hundreds or thousands of miles. HVDC and Ultra HVAC sounds nice on paper, but the reasons the industry doesn't use them today are numerous. Again, the grid needs to provide 100% capacity 99.95% of the time. Renewables simply cannot handle that without massive storage that is still only theoretical - and often infeasible. Pumped hydro is a great example of a theoretical storage concept that would only work in a small number of places, and yet still would be a major undertaking with large losses in efficiency. These are just pie-in-the-sky ideas, or flat out unrealistic.
  - 7952 7y ago
    You complain about minsinformation and then say stuff like that. HVDC is very widely deployed for interconnectors and grid connections. And there are >20 UHV lines in China, many over 1,000 km long. This is not pie-in-the-sky but physics. By using appropriate technology you reduce tranmsision losses and/or cost. Also consumption and demand are already very spread out in a traditional grid. A generator can go offline and the power is sourced from another location. In fact this is essential for nuclear stations as large generators can fail rapily. I agree that pumped hydro has limited value, and nothing is a panacea on its own. But most of the nuclear states actually have significant deployed pumped hydro capacity. It is a complementary technology. When nuclear power stations fail they can leave a big hole in generating capacity. Pumped hydro can deliver >1GW in a short amount of time and fill that hole. Otherwise you need to maintain more spinning reserve.