3 ms·

From my limited knowledge in the field, "traditional" nuclear power plants are usually very likely to incur in cost overruns (a recent example being [0]), suppl

by 0x_rs 5y ago

From my limited knowledge in the field, "traditional" nuclear power plants are usually very likely to incur in cost overruns (a recent example being [0]), supplemental to an already significant expense and a very long term investment that most politicians do not seem to be very fond of. In the past few decades modular, entirely self-contained and passively safe designs have been often in discussion as more and more systems are devised, but I don't feel much interest towards a mass adoption to at the very least represent a fraction of the current worldwide power generation (above the tiny percentage nuclear sits on at the moment). Is it merely a matter of economics and ineffectivenes of the price/lifetime power generation, compared to more traditional systems? It's not as if other nuclear concepts cannot also take advantage of a good portion of spent fuel—that so far has been of significant concern and only one project seems will be successful at in the short-future [1]—such as traveling wave reactors, or breeder designs in general (I do understand most of the research and real-life applications have been less than effective). Due to continuous power generation couldn't such systems also reduce the need for the much dreaded fossil backup, assuming sufficient capacities? [0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/edf-lifts-cost-of-french-nuclear-reactor-by-14-to-13-6-billion https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/edf-lifts... [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-repository-a-game-changer-for-the-nuclear-industry-director-general-grossi-says https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/finlands-spent-fuel-rep...

Frost1x 5y ago
>nuclear power plants are usually very likely to incur in cost overruns (a recent example being [0]), supplemental to an already significant expense and a very long term investment that most politicians do not seem to be very fond of. I'd be interested to see a good fair accounting of all the externalized costs non-nuclear energy is able to pass off. Global warming is clearly one of them. The thing about nuclear energy is that danger and risk is inherently concentrated, so externalizing these costs isn't really an option. You can't go pouring spent fissile waste into the air and pouring buckets into the ocean (unless you're Japan, apparently). People have seen the dangers with Chernobyl and the like. People know enough to know it's dangerous stuff they can't take care of themselves. If you have an oil spill, well it's nasty but people are familiar with oils in their engine, natural gas, gasoline, ash, and all that. People kind of understand it and know a little bit of exposure typically won't kill them. You can pour motor oil on your hand and you're mostly going to be just fine (do it a lot and often and maybe not). Pour fissile waste material over your hand and depending on radiation, you might die just by getting close or get cancer from short term exposure. People see the danger and you can't externalize that. Other materials you can sort of shrug off because long term effects you can get away with externalizing in our society. Let consumers, governments, and others pickup all the debt you're generating that no one is accounting. So I think we need real fair cost assessments before we can handwaive away which energy sources are costly and understand the variance in these types of costs, especially if we're going to live in this world where economics and utilitarianism seems to rule the world.

by 0x_rs 5y ago

Frost1x 5y ago

>nuclear power plants are usually very likely to incur in cost overruns (a recent example being [0]), supplemental to an already significant expense and a very long term investment that most politicians do not seem to be very fond of. I'd be interested to see a good fair accounting of all the externalized costs non-nuclear energy is able to pass off. Global warming is clearly one of them. The thing about nuclear energy is that danger and risk is inherently concentrated, so externalizing these costs isn't really an option. You can't go pouring spent fissile waste into the air and pouring buckets into the ocean (unless you're Japan, apparently). People have seen the dangers with Chernobyl and the like. People know enough to know it's dangerous stuff they can't take care of themselves. If you have an oil spill, well it's nasty but people are familiar with oils in their engine, natural gas, gasoline, ash, and all that. People kind of understand it and know a little bit of exposure typically won't kill them. You can pour motor oil on your hand and you're mostly going to be just fine (do it a lot and often and maybe not). Pour fissile waste material over your hand and depending on radiation, you might die just by getting close or get cancer from short term exposure. People see the danger and you can't externalize that. Other materials you can sort of shrug off because long term effects you can get away with externalizing in our society. Let consumers, governments, and others pickup all the debt you're generating that no one is accounting. So I think we need real fair cost assessments before we can handwaive away which energy sources are costly and understand the variance in these types of costs, especially if we're going to live in this world where economics and utilitarianism seems to rule the world.