3 ms·

Of course he did. 10% more or less of it for the same amount of electricity doesn't make the difference between a manageable problem and an insurmountable one.

by 08-15 6y ago

Of course he did. 10% more or less of it for the same amount of electricity doesn't make the difference between a manageable problem and an insurmountable one. (It's a manageable problem, obviously.)

dpoochieni 6y ago
Don't know the details but consider even if it were 10% more of it, what if it currently (directly and indirectly) is 80% of nuclear energy's cost. You would be talking about an almost 50% hit to the profitability of such a proposal.
- 08-15 6y ago
  Yeah, what if thing were totally unlike what they are. The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and operations. Handling the tiny amount of radwaste is cheap (something like 0.1ct/kWh). It's much more expensive than it needs to be, because the governments declared that they would take care of the waste and then acted the way governments always do. And then there are people like you, who talk about mysterious unquantifiable "indirect" costs that are tacitly assumed to be approximately infinite. But that's just FUD, a glass log on the sea floor doesn't cause any cost. (If it's so easy, why aren't we doing it? See above.)
  - dpoochieni 6y ago
    >The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and operations. Missing the point: how do the capital and operational costs scale with plant size in MW? It is ridiculous to assume they scale linearly throughout a big range so certain plant sizes will be more economical. It's all good, few people develop this kind of thought or are in a position requiring them to do so
    - 08-15 6y ago
      What? That isn't even remotely related to the point you tried (and failed) to make! At no reactor size is waste management a significant fraction of the cost. It may become a larger fraction with future developments, but never a large fraction.

3 ms·

Of course he did. 10% more or less of it for the same amount of electricity doesn't make the difference between a manageable problem and an insurmountable one.

by 08-15 6y ago

Of course he did. 10% more or less of it for the same amount of electricity doesn't make the difference between a manageable problem and an insurmountable one. (It's a manageable problem, obviously.)

dpoochieni 6y ago
Don't know the details but consider even if it were 10% more of it, what if it currently (directly and indirectly) is 80% of nuclear energy's cost. You would be talking about an almost 50% hit to the profitability of such a proposal.
- 08-15 6y ago
  Yeah, what if thing were totally unlike what they are. The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and operations. Handling the tiny amount of radwaste is cheap (something like 0.1ct/kWh). It's much more expensive than it needs to be, because the governments declared that they would take care of the waste and then acted the way governments always do. And then there are people like you, who talk about mysterious unquantifiable "indirect" costs that are tacitly assumed to be approximately infinite. But that's just FUD, a glass log on the sea floor doesn't cause any cost. (If it's so easy, why aren't we doing it? See above.)
  - dpoochieni 6y ago
    >The cost of current nuclear power is almost entirely capital cost and operations. Missing the point: how do the capital and operational costs scale with plant size in MW? It is ridiculous to assume they scale linearly throughout a big range so certain plant sizes will be more economical. It's all good, few people develop this kind of thought or are in a position requiring them to do so
    - 08-15 6y ago
      What? That isn't even remotely related to the point you tried (and failed) to make! At no reactor size is waste management a significant fraction of the cost. It may become a larger fraction with future developments, but never a large fraction.