4 ms·

Strongly behind this for the merits of the technology which are just unquestionably better results for the costs and risks. I’d also really favor making nuclear

by pfraze 6y ago

Strongly behind this for the merits of the technology which are just unquestionably better results for the costs and risks. I’d also really favor making nuclear energy an era-defining technology, like IT was for the 80s-20s. I think it’s wise to have big technological ideas drive progress, and as much as I care about “green,” it’s an uninspiring concept compared to nuclear.

cinntaile 6y ago
I don't see what you base your claims of unquestionably better results for the costs and risks on? Current nuclear energy production is quite expensive, it's on par with the costs for offshore wind iirc. The risks, well... Privately insuring a nuclear power plant is pretty much impossible from a cost perspective. That's why governments, the tax payers in other words, have to assume the full risk in case something goes wrong.
- rtx 6y ago
  Why are we talking cost and not the pollution footprint.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Because people want easy answers and don't want to look at inconvenient facts. That mindset will destroy humanity.
  - cinntaile 6y ago
    Not really sure why you were downvoted before since it's a valid question. We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  So it nuclear costs as much as offshore wind, but it's not intermittent? That's very strong advantage: non-intermittent generation avoids the need to overproduce and store energy.

by pfraze 6y ago

cinntaile 6y ago

I don't see what you base your claims of unquestionably better results for the costs and risks on? Current nuclear energy production is quite expensive, it's on par with the costs for offshore wind iirc. The risks, well... Privately insuring a nuclear power plant is pretty much impossible from a cost perspective. That's why governments, the tax payers in other words, have to assume the full risk in case something goes wrong.

rtx 6y ago
Why are we talking cost and not the pollution footprint.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Because people want easy answers and don't want to look at inconvenient facts. That mindset will destroy humanity.
- cinntaile 6y ago
  Not really sure why you were downvoted before since it's a valid question. We're talking cost since that's what the gp was talking about, I also believe that risk and cost is the right framework to think about these issues. Pollution is basically a cost, it's just that right now someone else besides the polluter will end up paying that cost sometime in the future. I think it would be a good thing if we could convert pollution to a cost that we get taxed on now, which is what a global carbon tax wants to achieve. That way you have to pay for what you pollute. It would definitely be a step in the right direction and perhaps the cost of nuclear would not be so great if all these externalities are taken into account. To be clear though. Just as I would like to see a carbon tax, I would also like to see nuclear paying actual risk premiums so that we can have a level playing field when choosing an energy source based on its LCOE or any similar criteria.
Manfredo_1 6y ago
So it nuclear costs as much as offshore wind, but it's not intermittent? That's very strong advantage: non-intermittent generation avoids the need to overproduce and store energy.