4 ms·

> Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love tha

> Can you build a nuclear reactor in less than a decade cheaper then storage and renewables? The evidence indicates no. But if you can, the world would love that, just demonstrate it's possible. Sure, the USA got to the moon in less time, in the 60s. As a technical problem it's easily doable. Even in quantity it could probably be done. (There are some questions of making many of the larger parts at once, such as the containment vessel, and if enough factories remain which are capable of it - in the USA. If it was worldwide, that's not an issue because China now has that capability.) On the political side, it's either impossible or pretty easy, depending on the motivation. It's currently impossible because of the nuclear boogeyman and all of the obstacles that opponents can throw out. (It is implied that these obstacles have no ultimate merit.) However, if we had a focus on pollution-related deaths, which are like a never-ending global pandemic - 10k deaths per week from coal pollution alone - then we'd probably find the will to fix it. Considering that (estimated lifetime) deaths by all Nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima, but excluding bombs) are less than one week of pollution deaths, it'd be an easy sell if we actually looked at numbers. In the Lazard study, do you see what they budgeted for non-panel costs in utility-grade solar? In residential the cost of the panels is often quite a lot less than the total system cost. > Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead. Hydro is almost tapped out, and not carbon neutral. But I agree we should build it everywhere possible because it is dependable, and comparatively cheap. Batteries are not gonna happen for grid-scale power. A few terawatt hours (a minimal estimate for the USA's storage needs) would be every battery produced in ten years, even with a ramp-up, and the pollution from the mining and manufacture would be huge. They're a great solution for certain storage solutions though because they're solid state unlike flywheels and pumped hydro storage. Places where convenience weighs heavily will adopt batteries. Renewables are absolutely the answer - as much as they are. Any generation that can be peaky, should be solar and wind if possible. Like if we built desalination plants they'd be a great use of intermittent power. Or if they're just charging the storage layer. Neither is free of pollution though, like batteries they merely front-load it and appear green when operating. You're 100% right though about full speed ahead. I'd rather start on solar today, which I don't fully believe in, than spend years arguing and be stuck where we are today.

deeviant 6y ago
> Considering that (estimated lifetime) deaths by all Nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima, but excluding bombs) are less than one week of pollution deaths, it'd be an easy sell if we actually looked at numbers. Than again, if Chernobyl or fukushima had experienced their worse-case scenarios, it's possible that nuclear would have caught up with pollution-related deaths instantaneously. Which illuminates the poor risk-assessment ability of the average person in regards to black swan events.
- HexagonalKitten 6y ago
  Worst operating failure, or worst engineerable outcome? I mean if you took the nuclear fuel and fed it to people one lethal does at a time - yes. You could kill tens of millions. But both reactors experienced almost the worst possible operating failure and this is how low the casualties were. Fukushima is leaking into the ocean and still not expected to cause a single radiation-based death. Vastly more people have been (/will be) killed by runoff ponds of coal ash slurry rupturing and running into rivers than from radiation from power plants or spent fuel. At 10k pollution deaths per week, for even just ten years, no. A nuclear reactor couldn't meet that (5M deaths) even if you left the switch in 'boom' mode and went home for the night.
  - deeviant 6y ago
    You just took what you originally said, and said it again. Did you expect a different result? If the worse-case engineering disaster happened in either case, millions would have died. If you want to dig into this point, great, happy to. If you want to repeat your original point ad-infinitum, pass.
    - HexagonalKitten 6y ago
      > You just took what you originally said, and said it again Only half of the last sentence, the conclusion, was repeated. But with space not being at a premium, I would happily restate something from up-thread because it can make it easier to read and reply to. > If the worse-case engineering disaster ... millions would have died. No, I don't think so. I think you'd need an engineered, as in intentional, disaster for that. Like terrorists. And engineering disaster (improper planning) is what Fukushima had. That's very unlikely to be improper enough to kill an entire city because engineering mistakes tend to be planned for to some degree and mitigated by building redundant systems. Very unlikely to cause a disaster, as in almost impossible even if you tried to form the same materials into a bomb.

deeviant 6y ago

> Considering that (estimated lifetime) deaths by all Nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima, but excluding bombs) are less than one week of pollution deaths, it'd be an easy sell if we actually looked at numbers. Than again, if Chernobyl or fukushima had experienced their worse-case scenarios, it's possible that nuclear would have caught up with pollution-related deaths instantaneously. Which illuminates the poor risk-assessment ability of the average person in regards to black swan events.

HexagonalKitten 6y ago
Worst operating failure, or worst engineerable outcome? I mean if you took the nuclear fuel and fed it to people one lethal does at a time - yes. You could kill tens of millions. But both reactors experienced almost the worst possible operating failure and this is how low the casualties were. Fukushima is leaking into the ocean and still not expected to cause a single radiation-based death. Vastly more people have been (/will be) killed by runoff ponds of coal ash slurry rupturing and running into rivers than from radiation from power plants or spent fuel. At 10k pollution deaths per week, for even just ten years, no. A nuclear reactor couldn't meet that (5M deaths) even if you left the switch in 'boom' mode and went home for the night.
- deeviant 6y ago
  You just took what you originally said, and said it again. Did you expect a different result? If the worse-case engineering disaster happened in either case, millions would have died. If you want to dig into this point, great, happy to. If you want to repeat your original point ad-infinitum, pass.
  - HexagonalKitten 6y ago
    > You just took what you originally said, and said it again Only half of the last sentence, the conclusion, was repeated. But with space not being at a premium, I would happily restate something from up-thread because it can make it easier to read and reply to. > If the worse-case engineering disaster ... millions would have died. No, I don't think so. I think you'd need an engineered, as in intentional, disaster for that. Like terrorists. And engineering disaster (improper planning) is what Fukushima had. That's very unlikely to be improper enough to kill an entire city because engineering mistakes tend to be planned for to some degree and mitigated by building redundant systems. Very unlikely to cause a disaster, as in almost impossible even if you tried to form the same materials into a bomb.