6 ms·

The cost of an integrated circuit in the 1970s would be so prohibitive you couldn't even type this today if we used this argument. Likewise with lithium batter

The cost of an integrated circuit in the 1970s would be so prohibitive you couldn't even type this today if we used this argument. Likewise with lithium batteries. It just takes use, iteration and scale nuclear energy can easily be cheaper than everything else out there.

quelsolaar 6y ago
Over the last 50 years nuclear has gotten more expensive not less. Also we dont have another 50 years. We dont even have the 10 years it takes to build a nuclear powerplant.
- briandear 6y ago
  Why exactly has it gotten more expensive?
  - black_puppydog 6y ago
    Because otherwise even a state wouldn't want to vouch for it.
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    In large part, because civil engineering projects got more expensive.
  - michieldotv 6y ago
    I see two reasons: Increased nuclear safety. Proponents often tout nuclear's relative safety. Good, but that safety is hard won through regulation. Compliance is costly, and improved safety has been subject to diminishing returns. Economies of scale. Building a nuclear power plant is a massive undertaking, so the world simply hasn't been building a lot of nuclear power plants. Supply chains (parts, know how) are getting smaller and more uncompetitive with every passing year as other forms of energy production have become more attractive.
  - quelsolaar 6y ago
    I dont really know why civil engineer projects of all kinds have gotten so expensive but they have. One would think that the more we learn from our failiures the more things we have to make sure we do right and that should take more time, on the other hand we should also learn to streamline and use technology to speed things up, but apparently not enough.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      It could be an example of Baumol's Cost Disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease
baybal2 6y ago
> The cost of an integrated circuit in the 1970s would be so prohibitive you couldn't even type this today if we used this argument. The improvement in IC technology more or less dealt with marginal price reduction. The price of nuclear power is the price of a lot of nickel alloy parts, and huge pressure vessel, and huge containment structures.
- titzer 6y ago
  > and huge containment structures. If you want to build huge reactors. If you want to build small modular reactors, not so much. For example, the US navy is not flitting around in giant concrete domes.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Unlike the US navy reactors, civilian reactors don't swim in coolant. Yes, power levels make difference there, but there is no inherent advantage of smaller sizes in this context. If reactor explosion happens even with small reactor sizes, containment building makes no difference unless you size it to contain even an explosion, which will make it even more expensive. And you will still have to deal with meltdown products in the end. If you have enormous amounts of coolant at hand, you can equally well cool a bigger reactor too.
    - Akronymus 6y ago
      Modern reactor designs physically CAN'T explode. Modern reactors are designed with a HEAVILY negative coefficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient
      - baybal2 6y ago
        > Modern reactor designs physically CAN'T explode. You have a few gigawatt water heater, and an extremely large pressure vessel. Modern reactors physically can explode, with, or without positive void reactivity coefficient. I urge you to disable the control system on any working PWR reactor, and stand by to test your hypothesis. Rapid power excursions with, or without coolant inside come from many phenomena, not just void reactivity coefficients.
gilbetron 6y ago
But nuclear power has been around just as long as ICs, so this is an odd comment. Obviously it isn't going to follow the same path as ICs because it already hasn't...
- epistasis 6y ago
  Even worse, nuclear very clearly gets more expensive the more if it we build, not less expensive.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    That's not true and the entire history of mass production is goes against what you just said. If we settled on a common reactor design, that is modular and can not (by design) ever go critical the price would absolutely drop. Surely basic logic will tell you that.
    - olau 6y ago
      The reason your logic doesn't work out is because the assumptions you put in place are counterfactual. What is factual is that the nuclear industry has been around for many decades and has not been able to solve this problem, despite there being lots of pretty clever people involved in it. A contributing factor to making the learning curve negative is that the security guarantees underlying the plant designs are built on what we know can go wrong. As we learn more about the problem, we also learn of more weird failure modes, complicating the design of future plants. I've seen people handwave this away with paper designs. Paper designs are comparatively easy to make safe. Real reactors are much, much harder. If you think this is bullshit, try looking up a certain admiral Rickover and see what he has to say about this. Meanwhile, renewables keep falling in price.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      I'm not sure where the logic is here, you are making an assertion without any supporting evidence. What sort of logic can you provide to back up your assertion? Any such reasoning must also include actual numbers and costs.

quelsolaar 6y ago

Over the last 50 years nuclear has gotten more expensive not less. Also we dont have another 50 years. We dont even have the 10 years it takes to build a nuclear powerplant.

briandear 6y ago
Why exactly has it gotten more expensive?
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Because otherwise even a state wouldn't want to vouch for it.
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  In large part, because civil engineering projects got more expensive.
- michieldotv 6y ago
  I see two reasons: Increased nuclear safety. Proponents often tout nuclear's relative safety. Good, but that safety is hard won through regulation. Compliance is costly, and improved safety has been subject to diminishing returns. Economies of scale. Building a nuclear power plant is a massive undertaking, so the world simply hasn't been building a lot of nuclear power plants. Supply chains (parts, know how) are getting smaller and more uncompetitive with every passing year as other forms of energy production have become more attractive.
- quelsolaar 6y ago
  I dont really know why civil engineer projects of all kinds have gotten so expensive but they have. One would think that the more we learn from our failiures the more things we have to make sure we do right and that should take more time, on the other hand we should also learn to streamline and use technology to speed things up, but apparently not enough.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    It could be an example of Baumol's Cost Disease. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol%27s_cost_disease

baybal2 6y ago

> The cost of an integrated circuit in the 1970s would be so prohibitive you couldn't even type this today if we used this argument. The improvement in IC technology more or less dealt with marginal price reduction. The price of nuclear power is the price of a lot of nickel alloy parts, and huge pressure vessel, and huge containment structures.

titzer 6y ago
> and huge containment structures. If you want to build huge reactors. If you want to build small modular reactors, not so much. For example, the US navy is not flitting around in giant concrete domes.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Unlike the US navy reactors, civilian reactors don't swim in coolant. Yes, power levels make difference there, but there is no inherent advantage of smaller sizes in this context. If reactor explosion happens even with small reactor sizes, containment building makes no difference unless you size it to contain even an explosion, which will make it even more expensive. And you will still have to deal with meltdown products in the end. If you have enormous amounts of coolant at hand, you can equally well cool a bigger reactor too.
  - Akronymus 6y ago
    Modern reactor designs physically CAN'T explode. Modern reactors are designed with a HEAVILY negative coefficient. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > Modern reactor designs physically CAN'T explode. You have a few gigawatt water heater, and an extremely large pressure vessel. Modern reactors physically can explode, with, or without positive void reactivity coefficient. I urge you to disable the control system on any working PWR reactor, and stand by to test your hypothesis. Rapid power excursions with, or without coolant inside come from many phenomena, not just void reactivity coefficients.

gilbetron 6y ago

But nuclear power has been around just as long as ICs, so this is an odd comment. Obviously it isn't going to follow the same path as ICs because it already hasn't...

epistasis 6y ago
Even worse, nuclear very clearly gets more expensive the more if it we build, not less expensive.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  That's not true and the entire history of mass production is goes against what you just said. If we settled on a common reactor design, that is modular and can not (by design) ever go critical the price would absolutely drop. Surely basic logic will tell you that.
  - olau 6y ago
    The reason your logic doesn't work out is because the assumptions you put in place are counterfactual. What is factual is that the nuclear industry has been around for many decades and has not been able to solve this problem, despite there being lots of pretty clever people involved in it. A contributing factor to making the learning curve negative is that the security guarantees underlying the plant designs are built on what we know can go wrong. As we learn more about the problem, we also learn of more weird failure modes, complicating the design of future plants. I've seen people handwave this away with paper designs. Paper designs are comparatively easy to make safe. Real reactors are much, much harder. If you think this is bullshit, try looking up a certain admiral Rickover and see what he has to say about this. Meanwhile, renewables keep falling in price.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    I'm not sure where the logic is here, you are making an assertion without any supporting evidence. What sort of logic can you provide to back up your assertion? Any such reasoning must also include actual numbers and costs.