4 ms·

Nuclear energy, for generations now, always has a stronger theoretical case than a practical one. Going on first principles, nuclear is amazing. Abundant. Clea

Nuclear energy, for generations now, always has a stronger theoretical case than a practical one. Going on first principles, nuclear is amazing. Abundant. Clean. Cheap. Constant. When we build cities along the kuiper belt, they're obviously going to be nuclear powered. Practically... Nuclear energy has been around for 60+ years. There have been massive investments. Many plants in many countries trying different things. It's rarely been a notable success. It rarely been especially cheap. Not that nuclear energy projects always fail, but... To riff on the author's own analogy: nuclear never had a coal_vs_wood moment. It didn't ultimately matter that the clergy hated coal. Coal was better than wood by a big enough margin that it would win regardless. Nuclear was never practically superior enough to replace coal, and many countries that invested in nuclear divested later. Renewables OTOH, despite their first principles problems are on an economic trajectory that nuclear never had in practice. Long term, nuclear is a good bet. Practically, it's that bet rarely never paid off to date... and many bets have been made.

chrisdinn 6y ago
What counts as notable success? The entire base energy load for Ontario, Canada comes from nuclear (see: live.gridwatch.ca) and the provinces high energy costs (such as they were) were directly caused by investment in renewables through guaranteed high rates paid to producers. This is not a political point, I supported those mostly-now-abandoned investments. They took down just-erected windmills near my house in recent years (Prince Edward County, Ontario). Seems like you are seizing defeat here.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  Notable success would be what was promised in the 50s. Energy so abundant that it's not metered. Doing to coal what coal did to wood. I don't think you should judge renewables on the same terms. These are much younger projects, at scale. Seizing defeat is fair, perhaps. Nuclear has been on the cusp for too long. "Marginally better than coal/gas" is not the notable success we were promised. I'm willing to cut losses, if that's all that is at risk. I'm not saying that nuclear's first principles advantages will never materialize. They will eventually. I just wouldn't be betting on nuclear now.
  - chrisdinn 6y ago
    You’re definitely right by that measure. There’s a famous hydro energy deal between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec in Canada where in the 1960s Newfoundland agreed to provide hydro power in a long term contract (80 years?) for what is now a fraction of its value. It’s viewed as an enormous boondoggle (“Churchill Falls”) but what most don’t realize is it was signed under the expectation that the coming wave of cheap, abundant nuclear would make hydro power uncompetitive.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      That's a really demonstrative example. I love trying to see the present from the viewpoint of the past. I feel like it sharpens the quality of my subjective judgement more than anything else. I was quite obsessed with Keynes' famous 15 hr workweek prediction as a student.

chrisdinn 6y ago

What counts as notable success? The entire base energy load for Ontario, Canada comes from nuclear (see: live.gridwatch.ca) and the provinces high energy costs (such as they were) were directly caused by investment in renewables through guaranteed high rates paid to producers. This is not a political point, I supported those mostly-now-abandoned investments. They took down just-erected windmills near my house in recent years (Prince Edward County, Ontario). Seems like you are seizing defeat here.

dalbasal 6y ago
Notable success would be what was promised in the 50s. Energy so abundant that it's not metered. Doing to coal what coal did to wood. I don't think you should judge renewables on the same terms. These are much younger projects, at scale. Seizing defeat is fair, perhaps. Nuclear has been on the cusp for too long. "Marginally better than coal/gas" is not the notable success we were promised. I'm willing to cut losses, if that's all that is at risk. I'm not saying that nuclear's first principles advantages will never materialize. They will eventually. I just wouldn't be betting on nuclear now.
- chrisdinn 6y ago
  You’re definitely right by that measure. There’s a famous hydro energy deal between the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec in Canada where in the 1960s Newfoundland agreed to provide hydro power in a long term contract (80 years?) for what is now a fraction of its value. It’s viewed as an enormous boondoggle (“Churchill Falls”) but what most don’t realize is it was signed under the expectation that the coming wave of cheap, abundant nuclear would make hydro power uncompetitive.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    That's a really demonstrative example. I love trying to see the present from the viewpoint of the past. I feel like it sharpens the quality of my subjective judgement more than anything else. I was quite obsessed with Keynes' famous 15 hr workweek prediction as a student.