4 ms·

>Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry? That is a different discussion. France built France built over 50 reactors in about 15 y

by opo 6y ago

>Ok, tell me how do you plan on restoring the dying nuclear industry? That is a different discussion. France built France built over 50 reactors in about 15 years, so obviously a rapid buildup could be done if that ends up being the best option, but that is worthy of its own discussion. My point was that there are advocates who only talk about the cost of nuclear power compared to say the low cost of solar electricity from solar cells in Arizona at noon. If we are going to only rely on wind/solar there are a lot of unknowns about how long term grid storage could work or the costs of over building of wind/solar that might have to be done, etc etc. Yea that all might just work out, but if it doesn't is it better to suffer an existential threat from climate change or use nuclear power? If people are opposed to nuclear power no matter the consequences, then they should just say that. I think Bill Gates has the right approach here - he is investing in grid storage technologies AND investing in advanced nuclear plant designs.

godelski 6y ago
That's because Bill Gates listened to the scientists, and you can see him write about this. He knows to not put all his eggs in one basket. So he invests in small nuclear, because it is a technology we have and can fix deployment issues. He invests in solar because it is a far cheaper option in sunny areas. He invests in carbon capture and sequestration to reverse the effects of climate change to this point and how we'll likely continue to pollute. He invests in battery technology so we can use those renewables without a base load (really would be a phase in). And he's investing in fusion because it could make all these questions obsolete. He's investing from many different angles because you can't really predict what will work. There's this weird myth of "either or" here. People are treating money, labor, and materials as if they are these static things. This isn't a video game where if you need more pylons you just buy them. In reality we only have so many experts in a field at a time. We can't just solve fusion faster by throwing more money at it. There are diminishing returns after a point. So you use this money elsewhere. This weird myth of "either or" really comes down to thinking that everyone is stupid and "I'm an expert" (the "It's so simple, you just..."). I find this odd on a site full of tech nerds who have to frequently deal with these types of logistical issues and laymen making wildly naive conjectures.
- manfredo 6y ago
  Nuclear really does force us into an "either or" scenario. Nuclear is just as cheap as it is to run at a fraction of its capacity as it does to run it at full capacity. Peak energy load also happens when the sun is not in line of sight. So if you use nuclear to fulfill peak load, then you can just use these plants for the rest of the day and skip building intermittent sources. This is why most plans for renewables are contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in energy storage. Or continued use of fossil fuels. Because if you use nuclear to fill in the duck curve, then there's no reason to build out other sources of energy.

by opo 6y ago

godelski 6y ago

That's because Bill Gates listened to the scientists, and you can see him write about this. He knows to not put all his eggs in one basket. So he invests in small nuclear, because it is a technology we have and can fix deployment issues. He invests in solar because it is a far cheaper option in sunny areas. He invests in carbon capture and sequestration to reverse the effects of climate change to this point and how we'll likely continue to pollute. He invests in battery technology so we can use those renewables without a base load (really would be a phase in). And he's investing in fusion because it could make all these questions obsolete. He's investing from many different angles because you can't really predict what will work. There's this weird myth of "either or" here. People are treating money, labor, and materials as if they are these static things. This isn't a video game where if you need more pylons you just buy them. In reality we only have so many experts in a field at a time. We can't just solve fusion faster by throwing more money at it. There are diminishing returns after a point. So you use this money elsewhere. This weird myth of "either or" really comes down to thinking that everyone is stupid and "I'm an expert" (the "It's so simple, you just..."). I find this odd on a site full of tech nerds who have to frequently deal with these types of logistical issues and laymen making wildly naive conjectures.

manfredo 6y ago
Nuclear really does force us into an "either or" scenario. Nuclear is just as cheap as it is to run at a fraction of its capacity as it does to run it at full capacity. Peak energy load also happens when the sun is not in line of sight. So if you use nuclear to fulfill peak load, then you can just use these plants for the rest of the day and skip building intermittent sources. This is why most plans for renewables are contingent on orders-of-magnitude improvements in energy storage. Or continued use of fossil fuels. Because if you use nuclear to fill in the duck curve, then there's no reason to build out other sources of energy.