4 ms·

This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, and anti-science policy. You sound like someone who doesn't have to work out

This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, and anti-science policy. You sound like someone who doesn't have to work out the financial engineering to back all that development. The treehuggers may be anti-nuclear, but energy investors are not. What energy investors are however, is pro-profit. Nuclear keeps falling short in the analysis phase of a lot of energy investment firms due diligence. Probably won't be attractive unless and until the government comes in and basically nationalizes the construction of these facilities. It's unreasonable to expect the private sector to lose billions on billions building nuclear plants "cuz we should do right". Look at the mess that is Vogtie, and you'll understand clearly nuclear's problem. I would go so far as to say that even with zero taxes, and no regulations at all, most energy firms would walk away from the vast majority of nuclear projects. Nuclear's problem is not "corruption". The pursuit of profit on the part of energy investors is not "corrupt". T Boone Pickens is not a tree hugger. He just knows that the windmills he was slapping up generated return in less than 6 months with enviable yield. Whereas a nuclear plant may not return a profit in its lifetime. The essential problem here, is financial, and no one wants to address that problem in a realistic fashion. Government, at least it seems, is simply in no hurry to intervene. (Probably because they don't have any more of an appetite for laying out those kinds of sums than the energy investors do.)

andbberger 6y ago
You're absolutely right, the "financial engineering" of nuclear energy is not my problem, and the government should definitely nationalize nuclear energy. The corruption I'm referring to is the oil lobby's interference in policy and public perception. You're saying: capitalism doesn't work in the context of carbon-free energy production (or in general, but let's leave that aside), and I agree. Controversial opinion in a fundamentally capitalistic forum such as this one, but capitalism is very much the problem here. It has systematically failed to price in externalities, which is why nuclear energy doesn't look so good on the balance sheet. Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us.
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  "Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us. " As someone who was born into the toxic fallout of chernobyl, despite being quite far away, I can understand the reason many people are against nuclear and in favor of renewables. I see no corruption there - and you can argue, that if all of the government subsidies for nuclear would go immediately to renewables for projetcs like Desertec, there would be no need to have this discussion any further. So I am not Antinuclear, I would like to see some new and small reactors as kind of a backup for the grid, while we change to renewable for good.
  - andbberger 6y ago
    Having a hard time tracking down primary sources, but is it not the case that the design flaws of RMBK reactors (positive void coefficient for one) were suppressed?
    - lstodd 6y ago
      They were, and RBMK branch of development was in fact buried after that. As far as Russia is concerned there is only VVER (PWR tech, mostly resembling AP1000 series). And some experiments with fast neutrons at Beloyarsk. Why anyone still remembers the RBMKs is sorta strange. They've been dead for more than 30 years.
      - VBprogrammer 6y ago
        > They've been dead for more than 30 years. That's not true. There are 9 RMBK reactors still in operation today. The other 3 units at Chernobyl continued to operate after the disaster. One was decommisioned after a fire destroyed it's generators. The last 2 continued to operate until they were shutdown as part of the deal with the Ukraine joining the EU. If anything it's amazing that people don't realise how successful the RMBK has been despite Chernobyl.

andbberger 6y ago

You're absolutely right, the "financial engineering" of nuclear energy is not my problem, and the government should definitely nationalize nuclear energy. The corruption I'm referring to is the oil lobby's interference in policy and public perception. You're saying: capitalism doesn't work in the context of carbon-free energy production (or in general, but let's leave that aside), and I agree. Controversial opinion in a fundamentally capitalistic forum such as this one, but capitalism is very much the problem here. It has systematically failed to price in externalities, which is why nuclear energy doesn't look so good on the balance sheet. Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us.

hutzlibu 6y ago
"Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us. " As someone who was born into the toxic fallout of chernobyl, despite being quite far away, I can understand the reason many people are against nuclear and in favor of renewables. I see no corruption there - and you can argue, that if all of the government subsidies for nuclear would go immediately to renewables for projetcs like Desertec, there would be no need to have this discussion any further. So I am not Antinuclear, I would like to see some new and small reactors as kind of a backup for the grid, while we change to renewable for good.
- andbberger 6y ago
  Having a hard time tracking down primary sources, but is it not the case that the design flaws of RMBK reactors (positive void coefficient for one) were suppressed?
  - lstodd 6y ago
    They were, and RBMK branch of development was in fact buried after that. As far as Russia is concerned there is only VVER (PWR tech, mostly resembling AP1000 series). And some experiments with fast neutrons at Beloyarsk. Why anyone still remembers the RBMKs is sorta strange. They've been dead for more than 30 years.
    - VBprogrammer 6y ago
      > They've been dead for more than 30 years. That's not true. There are 9 RMBK reactors still in operation today. The other 3 units at Chernobyl continued to operate after the disaster. One was decommisioned after a fire destroyed it's generators. The last 2 continued to operate until they were shutdown as part of the deal with the Ukraine joining the EU. If anything it's amazing that people don't realise how successful the RMBK has been despite Chernobyl.