5 ms·

Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal: Forging a New America

13 points by drannex 6y ago

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
The problem with nuclear energy is that it's 3-4x the price of solar/wind per unit energy[1], and it takes 10+ years to build most reactors. If you want to cut carbon emissions ASAP it's important to pick the fastest, cheapest zero-carbon solution. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg
- drannex 6y ago
  The true mean construction time for nuclear reactors is only 7.5years¹ and this does not take into account the new Small Module Reactors (SMR) that are substantially smaller that are starting to be put into production² ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://phys.org/news/2020-10-viability-small-modular-nuclear-reactors.html https://phys.org/news/2020-10-viability-small-modular-nuclea...
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    This is FALSE. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years." The most promising SMR project is already hitting the same delays and cost overruns that plague the nuclear industry. Citation: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities-back-out-deal-build-novel-nuclear-power-plant https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities... Quote: "announced that completion of the project would be delayed by 3 years to 2030. It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion." 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    So 7.5 years. Solar/wind are dropping in price at double-digit percentages per year, as are numerous metrics for battery storage for cost. in 8 years, solar/wind with -10% (which is actually conservative in the last 20 years, solar has been dropping 15-20% per year I believe) will be only 40% of the current cost.
zero_deg_kevin 6y ago
People popping up out of the woodwork to argue passionately for an out-of-favor technology reeks of a dying industry trying to revive itself with public relations. Is there any reason to believe that this isn’t just an industry group with a friendly, activist face?
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  > People popping up out of the woodwork to argue passionately for an out-of-favor technology reeks of a dying industry trying to revive itself with public relations. Yes. I'll probably get downvoted for saying it, but I want to get out in the open that the situation reeks of a PR/astroturfing campaign. There are a small number of ardent nuclear energy supporters acting in good faith, but a much larger army of paid trolls that have been active for the last few years. I mod on Reddit and have seen this happen daily. They post a pro-nuclear/anti-renewables talking point and then when you look at the account history, the account will be days old or have a clearly artificial history generated by karma farming (reposting old comment or short junk comments generated by computer). It follows much the same patterns we saw with accounts pushing climate change denial on social media. Research later showed this was driven by bots and paid trolls. > Is there any reason to believe that this isn’t just an industry group with a friendly, activist face I can almost guarantee this is the case. So-called environmentalist Micheal Shellenberger is another example (made more clear when he came out as a climate change minimizer recently). It uses the same playbook that fossil fuel companies used to create artificial climate change skepticism. At least one group of reporters is doing investigative research into this issue. One litmus test to use: most nuclear energy advocates that are acting in good faith see it as part of an all-of-the-above energy solution that includes nuclear, renewables, and storage. The shill accounts break from this by trying to trash renewables while pushing nuclear energy.
  - AtlasBarfed 6y ago
    Do you see the same in hydrogen or "green" hydrogen?
    - 6y ago
giantg2 6y ago
I do believe that nuclear energy is a good option for our future. I have a question about this article. It says that inequality is the highest it has been in 50 years, yet the graph it uses to show this doesn't support that claim. It shows that the top 1% of families held more wealth in prior years until approximately the 1940s. Now I'm not arguing that inequality is not a problem, nor am I saying that it isn't higher now than in the past, but what I am wondering is why they would use a graph that seemingly contradicts their claim? It might be that the top 10% have gained a larger share over time, but if that were the case, then why not use a graphic that illustrates that?
- drannex 6y ago
  Their case is accurate to the graph, the graph is showing the distribution of wealth of the top 1% vs the general population, and in the last fifty years the top 1% does in fact have a wider share (the graph actually shows we are at our worst in nearly 70 years - since 1940, early WW2). The graph is inverted than initially assumed, the smallest share is at the top (15%), the largest share is at the bottom (55%). So in 1960 the share was ~28% and now it is ~40%.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I'm an idiot. I did not notice that it was inverted. Which brings me to another question - why set the axis as inverted?
    - drannex 6y ago
      I had a double take when I saw your comment and looked back at the graph as well. I've asked the author to describe the reasons behind it, if there are any.
- aaron-santos 6y ago
  > It says that inequality is the highest it has been in 50 years, yet the graph it uses to show this doesn't support that claim. It shows that the top 1% of families held more wealth in prior years until approximately the 1940s. The 1940s are approx. 80 years ago. "In 50 years" refers to the period starting from ~1970 onwards.
simlevesque 6y ago
There is no way to know that in 100 years we'll be able to take care of the nuclear waste. Thinking otherwise is hubris. Nuclear is a total gamble on whether we can keep it safe for decades.
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  Worse, it's a total gamble on whether or not we'll even be able to BUILD a given reactor. Reactor construction projects have an absolutely gobsmacking rate of delays and massive cost overruns, and many end up getting canceled. Flamanville in France is fully 3x its original cost estimate. If it manages to hit its current planned opening date in 2022, then that will be after 15 YEARS of construction. Out of the recent wave of reactor construction in Europe and the US, most are have hit massive delays and cost overruns. At this point it's hard to conclude that the nuclear industry is remotely competent to deliver on any single promise.
  - drannex 6y ago
    The above is not true with the actual data showing that the mean time is 7.5 years for production¹ as I wrote (and sourced) in another comment in the thread. France is also the world leader in nuclear power and is investing even more resources towards it (France today produced an excess of power and exported 12GW of power to other countries²). They have the lowest carbon emissions, and lowest electricity costs. ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      France subsidizes EDF (who runs France's nuclear generation fleet) and owns ~85% of the utility. These facilities are not cost competitive without state sponsored subsidies (whereas renewables are the cheapest generation technology without subsidies). France is exporting nuclear power with aging reactors they could not afford to replace with new reactors today, and these reactors run at a lower capacity factor due to their load following configuration. Nuclear proponents keep advocating for an overly expensive technology that, in recent decades, never arrives on time or within budget. This is unnecessary with Europe's solar, wind, and hydro potential. Even more expensive offshore wind is cheaper than the cheapest nuclear generator. https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency-idUSL8N1YF5HC https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building... (Building new nuclear plants in France uneconomical -environment agency) https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison 2020, slide 3)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

13 points by drannex 6y ago

The problem with nuclear energy is that it's 3-4x the price of solar/wind per unit energy[1], and it takes 10+ years to build most reactors. If you want to cut carbon emissions ASAP it's important to pick the fastest, cheapest zero-carbon solution. 1: https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg

drannex 6y ago
The true mean construction time for nuclear reactors is only 7.5years¹ and this does not take into account the new Small Module Reactors (SMR) that are substantially smaller that are starting to be put into production² ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://phys.org/news/2020-10-viability-small-modular-nuclear-reactors.html https://phys.org/news/2020-10-viability-small-modular-nuclea...
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  This is FALSE. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years." The most promising SMR project is already hitting the same delays and cost overruns that plague the nuclear industry. Citation: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities-back-out-deal-build-novel-nuclear-power-plant https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/11/several-us-utilities... Quote: "announced that completion of the project would be delayed by 3 years to 2030. It also estimates the cost would climb from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion." 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  So 7.5 years. Solar/wind are dropping in price at double-digit percentages per year, as are numerous metrics for battery storage for cost. in 8 years, solar/wind with -10% (which is actually conservative in the last 20 years, solar has been dropping 15-20% per year I believe) will be only 40% of the current cost.

zero_deg_kevin 6y ago

People popping up out of the woodwork to argue passionately for an out-of-favor technology reeks of a dying industry trying to revive itself with public relations. Is there any reason to believe that this isn’t just an industry group with a friendly, activist face?

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
> People popping up out of the woodwork to argue passionately for an out-of-favor technology reeks of a dying industry trying to revive itself with public relations. Yes. I'll probably get downvoted for saying it, but I want to get out in the open that the situation reeks of a PR/astroturfing campaign. There are a small number of ardent nuclear energy supporters acting in good faith, but a much larger army of paid trolls that have been active for the last few years. I mod on Reddit and have seen this happen daily. They post a pro-nuclear/anti-renewables talking point and then when you look at the account history, the account will be days old or have a clearly artificial history generated by karma farming (reposting old comment or short junk comments generated by computer). It follows much the same patterns we saw with accounts pushing climate change denial on social media. Research later showed this was driven by bots and paid trolls. > Is there any reason to believe that this isn’t just an industry group with a friendly, activist face I can almost guarantee this is the case. So-called environmentalist Micheal Shellenberger is another example (made more clear when he came out as a climate change minimizer recently). It uses the same playbook that fossil fuel companies used to create artificial climate change skepticism. At least one group of reporters is doing investigative research into this issue. One litmus test to use: most nuclear energy advocates that are acting in good faith see it as part of an all-of-the-above energy solution that includes nuclear, renewables, and storage. The shill accounts break from this by trying to trash renewables while pushing nuclear energy.
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  Do you see the same in hydrogen or "green" hydrogen?
  - 6y ago

giantg2 6y ago

I do believe that nuclear energy is a good option for our future. I have a question about this article. It says that inequality is the highest it has been in 50 years, yet the graph it uses to show this doesn't support that claim. It shows that the top 1% of families held more wealth in prior years until approximately the 1940s. Now I'm not arguing that inequality is not a problem, nor am I saying that it isn't higher now than in the past, but what I am wondering is why they would use a graph that seemingly contradicts their claim? It might be that the top 10% have gained a larger share over time, but if that were the case, then why not use a graphic that illustrates that?

drannex 6y ago
Their case is accurate to the graph, the graph is showing the distribution of wealth of the top 1% vs the general population, and in the last fifty years the top 1% does in fact have a wider share (the graph actually shows we are at our worst in nearly 70 years - since 1940, early WW2). The graph is inverted than initially assumed, the smallest share is at the top (15%), the largest share is at the bottom (55%). So in 1960 the share was ~28% and now it is ~40%.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I'm an idiot. I did not notice that it was inverted. Which brings me to another question - why set the axis as inverted?
  - drannex 6y ago
    I had a double take when I saw your comment and looked back at the graph as well. I've asked the author to describe the reasons behind it, if there are any.
aaron-santos 6y ago
> It says that inequality is the highest it has been in 50 years, yet the graph it uses to show this doesn't support that claim. It shows that the top 1% of families held more wealth in prior years until approximately the 1940s. The 1940s are approx. 80 years ago. "In 50 years" refers to the period starting from ~1970 onwards.

simlevesque 6y ago

There is no way to know that in 100 years we'll be able to take care of the nuclear waste. Thinking otherwise is hubris. Nuclear is a total gamble on whether we can keep it safe for decades.

CogentHedgehog 6y ago
Worse, it's a total gamble on whether or not we'll even be able to BUILD a given reactor. Reactor construction projects have an absolutely gobsmacking rate of delays and massive cost overruns, and many end up getting canceled. Flamanville in France is fully 3x its original cost estimate. If it manages to hit its current planned opening date in 2022, then that will be after 15 YEARS of construction. Out of the recent wave of reactor construction in Europe and the US, most are have hit massive delays and cost overruns. At this point it's hard to conclude that the nuclear industry is remotely competent to deliver on any single promise.
- drannex 6y ago
  The above is not true with the actual data showing that the mean time is 7.5 years for production¹ as I wrote (and sourced) in another comment in the thread. France is also the world leader in nuclear power and is investing even more resources towards it (France today produced an excess of power and exported 12GW of power to other countries²). They have the lowest carbon emissions, and lowest electricity costs. ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    France subsidizes EDF (who runs France's nuclear generation fleet) and owns ~85% of the utility. These facilities are not cost competitive without state sponsored subsidies (whereas renewables are the cheapest generation technology without subsidies). France is exporting nuclear power with aging reactors they could not afford to replace with new reactors today, and these reactors run at a lower capacity factor due to their load following configuration. Nuclear proponents keep advocating for an overly expensive technology that, in recent decades, never arrives on time or within budget. This is unnecessary with Europe's solar, wind, and hydro potential. Even more expensive offshore wind is cheaper than the cheapest nuclear generator. https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency-idUSL8N1YF5HC https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building... (Building new nuclear plants in France uneconomical -environment agency) https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison 2020, slide 3)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]