10 ms·
>However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants. Yes, blackouts are cheaper
by readflaggedcomm 6y ago
>However, many of the measures needed for energy efficiency are now cheaper than the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants.
Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity.
>The second point is that renewables today have become so cheap that in many cases they are below the basic operating costs of nuclear power plants.
Prohibiting new plants by law has a way of doing that, with aging mechanisms that fail catastrophically instead of being gracefully shut down in favor of new ones.
And his explanation isn't to justify these claims, but to blame political opponents. Sad!
- robocat 6y agoNuclear friendly countries are struggling with the costs. Multiple examples of problems were given for France, yet the French government likes nuclear power.
- namdnay 6y agoElectricity in France is so cheap that EDF has had to raise domestic electricity prices in order to make it possible for other providers to compete
- Hammershaft 6y agoIn the short term nuclear is undoubtedly expensive, but when the debt from construction is payed off, it becomes an incredibly cheap and reliable source of energy. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
- throw0101a 6y agoNot disputing, but in the interests of full disclosure, the presenter is (per YT About): * Professor David Ruzic * Abel Bliss Professor of Engineering * Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering * University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- ncmncm 6y agoThe only truly reliable and inexhaustible output of the nuke industry is falsehood. They were lying before the first commercial plant was built ("too cheap to meter") and have continued well past the industry's deserved end ("incredibly cheap", above). The article demonstrates that even operating them, neglecting all of construction and decommissioning, costs more than alternatives. "Incredibly" is a perhaps unintentionally revealing admission.
- dividedbyzero 6y agoAs far as I'm aware, dealing with the waste has cost taxpayers in Germany quite a lot over the last couple of decades, and all of the really hot stuff is sitting in glorified warehouses with no end in sight. I have a feeling this may still become a very significant part of the overall costs. Has any other country actually solved that problem?
- merb 6y agosometimes waste is even dumped just into the earth: https://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-waste-across-italy-1513190243 https://gizmodo.com/the-mob-is-secretly-dumping-nuclear-wast... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/09/italy.nuclearpower https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/09/italy.nuclearp...
- stevenwoo 6y agoFinland? They are still doing construction but it seems all the planning stages have been done, but haven't seen recent update. https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuclear-waste-storage-may-set-example-world https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-31/finlands-solution-nuc... they generate the money to pay for the spent fuel disposal by taxing the revenue from the nuclear plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- addicted 6y agoThis is what the interviewee points to in the interview itself, but also adds that they mah not be the answer because there is evidence that original estimates for copper’s corrosion were far too optimistic.
- jojobas 6y agoThese glorified warehouses are cheap. Also cheap are former mines where 50 year old spent fuel can be placed with risks below that of chemical plants.
- 6y ago
- pydry 6y agoThey're good until 2030 and then they're all going to start aging out at more or less the same time. Nuclear power is extraordinarily capital intensive but fairly reasonably priced to run once it's built. This also creates a strong incentive to run plants beyond their operating lifetime, which France may do. That takes us into exciting new territory safety-wise.
- Trombone12 6y agoAnd then it becomes comes time to dismantle them, and they turn capital intensive again.
- api 6y agoThis tail end expense is maybe the largest problem with nuclear power. Economic systems and corporate structures are not set up for this. The whole economy is used to things costing nothing at the end of their life, or nearly so. Done with a car? Scrap it, strip it, recycle the recyclables, and toss the rest. Done with a building? Implode it and cart it away. Same goes for almost all other pieces of machinery and capital. Done with a nuke? Now you have another cost almost as high as building it to begin with! It's like having to buy your car and then spend almost the same amount to un-buy it at the end of its life span. Yes such things can be priced in, but it requires a tremendous amount of foresight and discipline. There is a constant temptation to cut corners on any cost that won't be incurred for a long time, especially if that time is beyond the term of a politician or the career of a corporate bureaucrat. Done with a solar panel? Send it to a bulk electronics recycler. Done with a wind turbine? Scrap it like any other piece of heavy machinery. There are other industries with non-trivial decommissioning costs, like chemicals, oil and gas, etc., but at least the time frame is reasonably short. Nuclear decommissioning costs drag on and on, theoretically many times longer than the plant's useful life span.
- Barrin92 6y agoThis is wrong in two ways. First off, electricity in France isn't particular cheap by European standards (which already is not cheap)[1] Secondly, the EDF is debt-laden and heavily subsidized by the French state, this is why other providers cannot compete. Nuclear energy itself is on the expensive end when it comes to energy sources. As the article points out, France has not even allocated a third of the money it needs to decommission existing plants. [1]https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
- belorn 6y agoLooking at the European data for energy subsidy (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en34-energy-subsidies/en34-energy-subsidies https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/en34-ener...), the energy sector that get most money is fossil fuels and by a large margin. Renewables comes in second. Nuclear do get most money for research and development compared to other energy sources, but I have a hard time see how that translate to energy prices. R&D usually goes to universities. If we use France specifically, according to the report here (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_energy_subsidies_in_particular_for_fossil_fuels.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_ene...): "In France, Belgium, Poland, Greece, Ireland and Finland, the highest shares were spent on fossil fuels (although in absolute terms, the fossil fuel subsidies in France were slightly lower than in Germany). Both Germany and France is at the same time dwarfed by the amount of subsidies given to fossil fuel in the US. Nuclear subsidized is a tiny dot on map compared to the billions being spent on coal, oil and gas.
- api 6y agoAre the prices subsidized? Are they actually that cheap or are you just paying the rest on your tax bill?
- fuoqi 6y agoIt does not look to me like Russia is struggling with exporting its reactors and building them domestically. Areva's issues look to me as purely organizational and political, not technical.
- behringer 6y agoI don't think you're calculating climate change into the cost. We've got maybe 100 years left before things go nuts with the arctic completely melting.
- ncmncm 6y agoMuch less than 100 years. But continuing to operate nukes--instead of building out renewables with that money, and investing the savings in even more renewables--brings it closer.
- toshk 6y agoTo everyone being a proponent of this modern new nuclear plants you dream about I ask: would you want to live in a village where they would build a new nuclear plant next to it?
- paholg 6y agoSure.
- aksss 6y agoI would have no problem with building one outside our city. And frankly compared the land clearing one would need for solar/thermal or the blight of enormous windmills, I’d prefer it. What you may be really asking is whether people are comfortable with the risk of turning into the next Chernobyl. I feel that risk is quite low, especially for new builds.
- toshk 6y ago:) fair play to you. At least the real estate prices will be good. I won't go for low risk when it comes to nuclear and not let my family grow up next to it. Only no risk would be acceptable to me when it comes to nuclear, quite some tail risk in this case.
- aksss 6y agoLet’s keep in mind that not doing nuclear is subjecting you and your family (and subsequent generations) to the long term issue of ever-increasing CO2 output. While waiting for workable battery tech at 3% avg y/y improvement - which means a looong wait for truly reliable at-scale FF displacement. The promise of renewables is great, but planning for a battery miracle in the short term is no plan at all. IF we appropriately monetize the cost of going deeper into fossil fuels every day (which is what the globe is doing right now, still), I think the risk of nuclear is put in a better context. So it seems to me we’re talking about the global risks of continuing on current track or localized risk of nuclear plant accident. Out of 440 operable on-grid plants, how many accidents have you heard of that would have impacted you or your family? I don’t think “no-risk” exists for any power gen tech, fwiw. There are always going to be trade-offs.
- the_why_of_y 6y ago> Yes, blackouts are cheaper than electricity. Texas has demonstrated that you can have blackouts and expensive at the same time if only you cut enough regulations. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/how-and-why-a-nuclear-reactor-shut-down-in-texas-cold-snap-when-energy-was-needed-most https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy/how-and-why...
- cheaprentalyeti 6y agoFunny, everyone was happy about how Texas scrapped so many coal plants and built so many windmills until it reached a cascade failure point and then the narrative shifted to "OMG, look at all the deregulation!"
- Trombone12 6y agoTexas had no power because they forgot everything they learnt the hard way from their "once-in-a-decade snow storm" they had 2011. Coal piles freezing solid because there is no roof, gas valves impossible to operate because nobody would put a box around them, no water too cool reactor cores because the pipes froze: these are not failures somehow cascading from the fact they build some windmills.
- fuoqi 6y agoWhen I learnt that turbines on Texas nuclear plants stay under the open sky I was REALLY surprised. It was the reason behind the single failure, otherwise nuclear plants have weathered this crisis perfectly.
- Trombone12 6y agoI guess the lesson is that not even Texans think nuclear is so safe it doesn't need weather protection, or maybe it's some pesky federal regulation that says that at least the reactor needs to be protected...
- makomk 6y ago