3 ms·

It was an honest question. I don't know which specific regulations, I've never built one but I have heard those who did lament the cost and trouble in even obta

by tinco 6y ago

It was an honest question. I don't know which specific regulations, I've never built one but I have heard those who did lament the cost and trouble in even obtaining a site. From what I can see fission reactors are doing just fine in France and Belgium. I don't know the specific numbers but the French don't seem worse off economically, despite having the greenest grid on the planet. Fission has a number of disadvantages over fusion that make it a reasonable possibility of it being economically more viable than fission. Because there's no compounding risks it is way more attractive to mass produce smaller reactors. Once the key hurdles are solved it will be a simple calculation to decide how much investment will yield how much return, that means it will be an interesting investment opportunity. Contrast this with fission, where a project is usually just one or two reactors, with tens of billions invested, loads of risk, slow and steady reward with various threats. It is not the complexity that makes power plants intractible, we build more complex things than fission reactors every day. Its the lack of supply chain because of the unsteady build rate. The iteration time of fusion reactors is measured in years, not decades by the way. Tokamak Energy is building its third iteration in 12 years, and plans to start the 4th in 2025. Obviously we aren't there yet, but if it's possible, and a relatively small company like Tokamak Energy can build a proof of concept, then I don't see why we wouldn't have thousands of reactors spread through cities all over the world within the next 20 years.

pfdietz 6y ago
It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. Nice walkback, though. Nuclear is in a bad state in France. Their recent attempts to build new reactors have gone massively over budget. Existing reactors are aging and it looks like they cannot replace them. Fission has some disadvantages over fusion, but those disadvantages won't make fusion cheaper than fission (the costs of fuel and waste disposal for fission are minor compared to other costs.) Fusion is inherently much lower in power density than fission, which will make the nuclear island much more expensive to build. It will require a minor miracle for fusion to be competitive with fission, never mind the cheaper sources of energy that are beating fission. > Tokamak Energy is building its third iteration in 12 years, They haven't built a fusion reactor. They have built experiments that are smaller and less complex that what a fusion power plant would have to be. Small fission reactors iterated well too; they weren't commercial power plants. The chance that we have thousands of fusion reactors all over the world in the next 20 years is indistinguishable from zero.
- tinco 6y ago
  > It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. I just stated the opposite, are you calling me a liar? And then you mock me for crediting your argument, does that make you feel good? Are we like fighting or something?
- jholman 6y ago
  > It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. Nice walkback, though. Not cool. I mean, when I first read tinco's comment, I thought what you thought. But either reading is plausible. If you're going to call someone a liar, maybe just don't reply.
- Seb-C 6y ago
  > Nuclear is in a bad state in France. Their recent attempts to build new reactors have gone massively over budget. Existing reactors are aging and it looks like they cannot replace them. This is a political problem which has nothing to do to with technology or costs themselves. Most infrastructures are aging and in a bad state in France, and the skills and knowledge to build or replace it has long been lost. Add on top of this politically strong ecologist-extremists who decided that nuclear is evil and must be gone, and who will do everything to sabotage any project. To take a counter example, nuclear is doing fine and growing in many countries, including China.
  - bildung 6y ago
    > This is a political problem which has nothing to do to with technology or costs themselves. No, nowhere in the world is nuclear power economically competitive. Construction costs are about 3x-4x the cost per kW compared to solar or wind. [0 page 11][1] > nuclear is doing fine and growing in many countries, including China. No, net nuclear plants in Asia are not increasing. [0 page 4] [0] https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.698579.de/dp1833.pdf https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.69857... [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45136 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45136
    - 6y ago
bildung 6y ago
> From what I can see fission reactors are doing just fine in France and Belgium. They aren't, France has had nuclear for geopolitical reasons, not primarily economic ones. And now that these plants are old, they won't be replaced with new ones (save 1 big project that is already way over budget and won't be price competitive once it is live).

by tinco 6y ago

pfdietz 6y ago

It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. Nice walkback, though. Nuclear is in a bad state in France. Their recent attempts to build new reactors have gone massively over budget. Existing reactors are aging and it looks like they cannot replace them. Fission has some disadvantages over fusion, but those disadvantages won't make fusion cheaper than fission (the costs of fuel and waste disposal for fission are minor compared to other costs.) Fusion is inherently much lower in power density than fission, which will make the nuclear island much more expensive to build. It will require a minor miracle for fusion to be competitive with fission, never mind the cheaper sources of energy that are beating fission. > Tokamak Energy is building its third iteration in 12 years, They haven't built a fusion reactor. They have built experiments that are smaller and less complex that what a fusion power plant would have to be. Small fission reactors iterated well too; they weren't commercial power plants. The chance that we have thousands of fusion reactors all over the world in the next 20 years is indistinguishable from zero.

tinco 6y ago
> It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. I just stated the opposite, are you calling me a liar? And then you mock me for crediting your argument, does that make you feel good? Are we like fighting or something?
jholman 6y ago
> It was a leading question, pretending to claim that regulation was the cause. Nice walkback, though. Not cool. I mean, when I first read tinco's comment, I thought what you thought. But either reading is plausible. If you're going to call someone a liar, maybe just don't reply.
Seb-C 6y ago
> Nuclear is in a bad state in France. Their recent attempts to build new reactors have gone massively over budget. Existing reactors are aging and it looks like they cannot replace them. This is a political problem which has nothing to do to with technology or costs themselves. Most infrastructures are aging and in a bad state in France, and the skills and knowledge to build or replace it has long been lost. Add on top of this politically strong ecologist-extremists who decided that nuclear is evil and must be gone, and who will do everything to sabotage any project. To take a counter example, nuclear is doing fine and growing in many countries, including China.
- bildung 6y ago
  > This is a political problem which has nothing to do to with technology or costs themselves. No, nowhere in the world is nuclear power economically competitive. Construction costs are about 3x-4x the cost per kW compared to solar or wind. [0 page 11][1] > nuclear is doing fine and growing in many countries, including China. No, net nuclear plants in Asia are not increasing. [0 page 4] [0] https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.698579.de/dp1833.pdf https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.69857... [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45136 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45136
  - 6y ago

bildung 6y ago

> From what I can see fission reactors are doing just fine in France and Belgium. They aren't, France has had nuclear for geopolitical reasons, not primarily economic ones. And now that these plants are old, they won't be replaced with new ones (save 1 big project that is already way over budget and won't be price competitive once it is live).