7 ms·

> Sure there is -- one option is a terrifically expensive and dangerous dead end. You say this with such certainty... but all of your citations are about renew

> Sure there is -- one option is a terrifically expensive and dangerous dead end. You say this with such certainty... but all of your citations are about renewable and solar. What is your background that gives you the confidence to make such a statement when billions are being spent on nuclear power research by, what I presume you would consider to be, idiots? I'll stop there because ad hominem arguments are insufficient anyway. The only argument that really matters here is, capitalism will decide the path forward, and not you (fortunately, imo). And the way it does that is that people, none of whom can predict the future with perfect clarity, make intelligent bets about what technologies will produce the most value. As the research and development pans out, the winners become evident, and either way, consumers win. There's no need to try to strangle the nuclear baby in the crib. If it doesn't work, let it die in development. But, really, how can you make such a confident assertion about the prospects of nuclear? It boggles the mind.

nicoffeine 6y ago
Hopefully HN is still a place where people who are interested in technology can make predictions. I make an effort never to call anyone names, but to focus on the data. I don't think people who are excited about new nuclear technology are idiots. Obviously, nuclear physicists are smart people. But no one, no matter how intelligent, is immune to hubris. > capitalism will decide the path forward, and not you (fortunately, imo) Capitalism is the poster child of hubris, and ultimately a fallible set of human ideas -- but that's a different discussion. However, if that is your metric, then the argument is already over.[1] > how can you make such a confident assertion about the prospects of nuclear? It boggles the mind. "But even some proponents of nuclear power doubt the program will spur construction of new commercial reactors as long as natural gas and renewable energy remain relatively cheap. 'New builds can’t compete with renewables,' says Robert Rosner, a physicist at the University of Chicago. 'Certainly not now.' ... "Ramana [U. of B.C. physicist] questions whether the U.S. nuclear industry can be saved. Although issues of dealing with waste and the public’s apprehension about radioactivity remain, the biggest issue confronting the nuclear industry is the high capital cost of new reactors, which can be $7 billion or more. In deregulated markets, utility companies cannot afford such capital expenses, which is why cheaper renewables may ultimately replace nuclear energy, he says. 'This is a sunset industry,' he says, 'and the sooner you recognize that the better.'[2] There are competing arguments in the same article, but the argument is between nuclear designs that only exist on paper and wind/solar technology that has already been built and is already providing electricity. If you want to put a shovel in the ground today and have renewable energy in a few months, it's possible with existing solar and wind at prices cheaper than any proposed idea for nuclear. Of course nuclear physicists want billions of dollars for R&D. Of course they believe they can create the one true design that doesn't have any of the fundamental problems of nuclear technology. But according to those people, even their best efforts won't produce any results for years and years. To put it into startup language, do you want to build a service using an architecture, language, and set of libraries that have been tested and used for years, or do you want to wait a decade and then start building on the latest holy grail platform that no one has successfully used in production? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy-rushes-build-advanced-new-nuclear-reactors https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy...
- darkerside 6y ago
  Small scale reactors, built in an agile fashion, seems like a significant departure from the types of projects you describe. I agree with making predictions, but I think they should be limited and testable predictions. If you say nuclear is a dying industry, I'm going to say you're painting with too broad a brush. I don't disagree that nuclear appears to be on the wrong track, but I've learned that people often conflate doing something wrong with that thing being impossible to do right.

nicoffeine 6y ago

Hopefully HN is still a place where people who are interested in technology can make predictions. I make an effort never to call anyone names, but to focus on the data. I don't think people who are excited about new nuclear technology are idiots. Obviously, nuclear physicists are smart people. But no one, no matter how intelligent, is immune to hubris. > capitalism will decide the path forward, and not you (fortunately, imo) Capitalism is the poster child of hubris, and ultimately a fallible set of human ideas -- but that's a different discussion. However, if that is your metric, then the argument is already over.[1] > how can you make such a confident assertion about the prospects of nuclear? It boggles the mind. "But even some proponents of nuclear power doubt the program will spur construction of new commercial reactors as long as natural gas and renewable energy remain relatively cheap. 'New builds can’t compete with renewables,' says Robert Rosner, a physicist at the University of Chicago. 'Certainly not now.' ... "Ramana [U. of B.C. physicist] questions whether the U.S. nuclear industry can be saved. Although issues of dealing with waste and the public’s apprehension about radioactivity remain, the biggest issue confronting the nuclear industry is the high capital cost of new reactors, which can be $7 billion or more. In deregulated markets, utility companies cannot afford such capital expenses, which is why cheaper renewables may ultimately replace nuclear energy, he says. 'This is a sunset industry,' he says, 'and the sooner you recognize that the better.'[2] There are competing arguments in the same article, but the argument is between nuclear designs that only exist on paper and wind/solar technology that has already been built and is already providing electricity. If you want to put a shovel in the ground today and have renewable energy in a few months, it's possible with existing solar and wind at prices cheaper than any proposed idea for nuclear. Of course nuclear physicists want billions of dollars for R&D. Of course they believe they can create the one true design that doesn't have any of the fundamental problems of nuclear technology. But according to those people, even their best efforts won't produce any results for years and years. To put it into startup language, do you want to build a service using an architecture, language, and set of libraries that have been tested and used for years, or do you want to wait a decade and then start building on the latest holy grail platform that no one has successfully used in production? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy-rushes-build-advanced-new-nuclear-reactors https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy...

darkerside 6y ago
Small scale reactors, built in an agile fashion, seems like a significant departure from the types of projects you describe. I agree with making predictions, but I think they should be limited and testable predictions. If you say nuclear is a dying industry, I'm going to say you're painting with too broad a brush. I don't disagree that nuclear appears to be on the wrong track, but I've learned that people often conflate doing something wrong with that thing being impossible to do right.