3 ms·

> reality Between 1975 and 1988 the world added 250 GW of carbon-free nuclear generation. That's 20 GWe/year. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-r

> reality Between 1975 and 1988 the world added 250 GW of carbon-free nuclear generation. That's 20 GWe/year. https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-information-system-pris https://www.iaea.org/resources/databases/power-reactor-infor...

phaemon 7y ago
Ok boomer
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Actually boomers are quite anti-nuclear as a generation. Millennial and younger are far more into it largely driven by the seriousness of climate change. The fact I stated is true.
  - phaemon 7y ago
    I'm sure it is and apologies to the fellow HNers who didn't find my comment funny. If you prefer a more serious answer, Nuclear is overpriced garbage. Sure, the industry keeps promising cheap and plentiful energy but what they deliver is Hinckley C.
    - acidburnNSA 7y ago
      Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature is not valued in markets, and that's a great shame. Look to the Koreans and Chinese if you want to see economical and effective nuclear projects.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes. It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position you reached by other means.
        acidburnNSA 7y ago
        That feeling when you work to improve deployment of a 24/7 low-footprint energy source that previously scaled at 20 GWe/yr and emits a mere 12 gCO2eq/kg and someone tells you that you're delusional. :o Just FYI I got into nuclear specifically for climate reasons. Climate has been the goal from before I knew what nuclear reactors really were. The assumption that all new nuclear plants in the US will be as bad as the most recent two is wild, especially when one understands the details of what went wrong in those projects. I don't think the current build process in the West is acceptable. I want to improve serialization and standardization of nuclear deployments to help with climate change quickly. A la Offshore Power Systems. $30/tonne is expected to be fine. See e.g. Table 2.1 in MIT's report [1] [1] http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-...
        pfdietz 7y ago
        We have to go with the data we have. Nuclear has a long history of promising more than it delivered, when it comes to cost. Investors can't ignore this. And I can't ignore it either, no matter how much you want yet another do over. All the "but next time will be different" doesn't change that. Nuclear's competitors don't have to resort to this increasingly desperate salesmanship. Renewable installations come in within 10% of initial cost estimates. They're fundamentally easier technologies to plan, work with, and deliver. Screw up 1% of the module installs in a PV field and your output is down 1%. Screw up 1% of the concrete pours, or 1% of the welds, in a nuclear plant, and it's world of hurt time. The complexity and interdependency of big plants means they are going to be difficult and expensive to build.

phaemon 7y ago

Ok boomer

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Actually boomers are quite anti-nuclear as a generation. Millennial and younger are far more into it largely driven by the seriousness of climate change. The fact I stated is true.
- phaemon 7y ago
  I'm sure it is and apologies to the fellow HNers who didn't find my comment funny. If you prefer a more serious answer, Nuclear is overpriced garbage. Sure, the industry keeps promising cheap and plentiful energy but what they deliver is Hinckley C.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Nuclear is extremely low-carbon baseload energy with very low land, waste, death, and raw material footprints. In a world of increasing carbon-related challenges, it's very challenging to write off. We're currently building high-carbon fracked gas plants like crazy because they're cheap. Put some kind of price on carbon emissions and instantly fracked gas is expensive and nuclear is cheap. Nuclear's low-carbon nature is not valued in markets, and that's a great shame. Look to the Koreans and Chinese if you want to see economical and effective nuclear projects.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      In the US, CO2 taxes would have to exceed $300/ton for new nuclear plants to pencil out, vs. new gas combined cycle plants. This means nuclear is an extremely poor way of reducing CO2 emission here. There's a vast array of alternatives that become viable at much lower CO2 taxes. It's not climate friendly to be choosing uneconomical approaches. It's almost as if you're using climate as a rationalization for a position you reached by other means.
      - acidburnNSA 7y ago
        That feeling when you work to improve deployment of a 24/7 low-footprint energy source that previously scaled at 20 GWe/yr and emits a mere 12 gCO2eq/kg and someone tells you that you're delusional. :o Just FYI I got into nuclear specifically for climate reasons. Climate has been the goal from before I knew what nuclear reactors really were. The assumption that all new nuclear plants in the US will be as bad as the most recent two is wild, especially when one understands the details of what went wrong in those projects. I don't think the current build process in the West is acceptable. I want to improve serialization and standardization of nuclear deployments to help with climate change quickly. A la Offshore Power Systems. $30/tonne is expected to be fine. See e.g. Table 2.1 in MIT's report [1] [1] http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-...
        pfdietz 7y ago
        We have to go with the data we have. Nuclear has a long history of promising more than it delivered, when it comes to cost. Investors can't ignore this. And I can't ignore it either, no matter how much you want yet another do over. All the "but next time will be different" doesn't change that. Nuclear's competitors don't have to resort to this increasingly desperate salesmanship. Renewable installations come in within 10% of initial cost estimates. They're fundamentally easier technologies to plan, work with, and deliver. Screw up 1% of the module installs in a PV field and your output is down 1%. Screw up 1% of the concrete pours, or 1% of the welds, in a nuclear plant, and it's world of hurt time. The complexity and interdependency of big plants means they are going to be difficult and expensive to build.