4 ms·

Of course there are peer reviewed studies that agree and disagree with everything you say here. It's just a question of how how reliable the peer-reviewed studi

Of course there are peer reviewed studies that agree and disagree with everything you say here. It's just a question of how how reliable the peer-reviewed studies on each side are at this point. This strengthens my point that it's ok for some investors to look into improving nuclear. It's also extremely popular to say that 100% renewables are a done deal because it's such a great story and feeling. Most serious deep-decarb clean-energy publications I've seen suggest energy costs go up by $30-50/MWh at deep decarb levels. At those levels, current nuclear already competes. People looking at LCOE today (where the rock-bottom wind/solar numbers depend completely on the hugely-fossil grid for backup and intermittency but hide the carbon emissions with impunity) tend to completely miss this point, their bias that wind/solar are cheaper already being confirmed. Yet there goes Japan with the 33 coal plants!

olau 7y ago
You can calculate how much power is needed based on past data. That part is complicated, but not really unreliable, although of course the demand may look different in 20 years. And yes, we're going to need extra longer-term storage, but less than you'd think (IIRC up to 10% for a large grid). Nobody knows the cost of that storage. You can calculate an upper bound by using today's prices, but once these things actually come in demand, new ideas are going to spring up and the prices are probably going to fall, just like it did for PV and wind turbines. It seems to me that investing in nuclear tech today is a really risky proposition.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Given the uncertainties and low worldwide penetration of low-carbon anything, I think there's a reasonable case to be made for the opposite conclusion: it may be risky to not invest in nuclear. Obviously this conclusion is far less popular. Fortunately investing in various clean energy tech is not a zero sum game because of various investor's predilection to invest in one sector or the other but often not both.

olau 7y ago

You can calculate how much power is needed based on past data. That part is complicated, but not really unreliable, although of course the demand may look different in 20 years. And yes, we're going to need extra longer-term storage, but less than you'd think (IIRC up to 10% for a large grid). Nobody knows the cost of that storage. You can calculate an upper bound by using today's prices, but once these things actually come in demand, new ideas are going to spring up and the prices are probably going to fall, just like it did for PV and wind turbines. It seems to me that investing in nuclear tech today is a really risky proposition.

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Given the uncertainties and low worldwide penetration of low-carbon anything, I think there's a reasonable case to be made for the opposite conclusion: it may be risky to not invest in nuclear. Obviously this conclusion is far less popular. Fortunately investing in various clean energy tech is not a zero sum game because of various investor's predilection to invest in one sector or the other but often not both.