7 ms·

According to [1] high prices are produced by, mainly, a tax hike on CO2 emission and secondly by the high gas price. In fact nuclear power (which is the cheape

According to [1] high prices are produced by, mainly, a tax hike on CO2 emission and secondly by the high gas price. In fact nuclear power (which is the cheapest and safest) has been in decline the last decades, which is shameful since it has prompted burning more fossil fuels and many more thousands of indirect deaths. We should go from nuclear straight to renewable, not to fossil fuels as we are (or buying nuclear from France). [1] https://www.eleconomista.es/empresas-finanzas/noticias/11355408/08/21/El-Banco-de-Espana-explica-por-que-se-dispara-el-precio-de-una-luz-que-vuelve-a-marcar-maximos-historicos.html https://www.eleconomista.es/empresas-finanzas/noticias/11355...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Retric 5y ago
Nuclear is crazy expensive, which is a big part of why it’s in decline globally. Even with serious subsidies it just can’t compete with other sources. Just look at what unsubsidized insurance would cost to cover the full amount of any possible nuclear disaster. Realize nobody forces them to pay that and they still can’t compete on the open market. There is plenty of talk around lowering cost of construction, but even if you got a new reactor for build free it still wouldn’t be cost effective to operate and decommission it without subsidies if you’re only paid market rates for power.
- Shadonototro 5y ago
  again, the problem is always money maybe we should eliminate money from the equation? it seems to be very limiting
  - kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
    They have no problem funding CERN and ITER. Why not spend some on research for lower cost fission reactors.
- roenxi 5y ago
  It isn't in decline [0]. The world has mostly recovered from Fukushima-induced panic. Only Europe is holding the number back from being actual growth. > Nuclear is crazy expensive People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards. The suddenly COVID comes along and "this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory" it isn't even the safest opinion for an extremely hastily developed vaccine. Previously the record was something like 4 years, typically longer [1]. Turns out almost all that time is safety testing. Nuclear will be similar. The majority of the cost will be government regulation rather than any sort of intrinsic difficulty, and we'll have the technology to do it cheaply. It is simply unbelievable that the cost of this specific technology would go up over time, given that every other new technology we know of has the cost going down and usually radically. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy [1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed-in-record-time-but-are-these-game-changers-safe-150249 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed...
  - coldtea 5y ago
    >People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards. Given how friendly nuclear with safety standards has been, nuclear with those pesky "overzealous safety standards" would be a hoot.
    - lostlogin 5y ago
      A free market without regulation would lead to safe and cheap nuclear energy. Is this a libertarian thing? We need a second planet far away from me where these experiments can be tested with willing participants.
      - danielheath 5y ago
        I’m not qualified to say whether Nuclear is a viable option or not, but the level of regulation is ridiculous compared to other energy sources. For instance, every Coal plant releases more radiation than any nuclear plant is permitted to. That’s far from a level playing field.
- franciscop 5y ago
  It is not, it's in fact one of the cheapest, look at the "coste marginal" in the table (only more expensive than solar and hydraulic): https://www.eoi.es/blogs/merme/coste-y-precio-de-las-diferentes-fuentes-de-energia-2/ https://www.eoi.es/blogs/merme/coste-y-precio-de-las-diferen...
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    Has anyone ever generated a single watt of nuclear power and the bill for its cleanup been paid in full?
    - sofixa 5y ago
      Yes. Idk about Spain, but most countries provision the full decommissioning and cleanup costs upfront when building, which is part of the reasons why nuclear is expensive. Nobody does that for any of the alternatives ( of course the risk and costs there are quite lower, but still)
- sofixa 5y ago
  It is expensive, but so are the only viable alternatives when externalities are properly added ( fossil fuels). Renewables are unsuitable for base load without significant storage, which is only barely starting to get somewhat realistic ( pumped up hydro requires earthworks that destroy existing ecosystems, and large scale battery storage is IMHO a waste of precious battery manufacturing capacity that is better used elsewhere). Build nuclear, subsidise it, and run it for decades.
  - Retric 5y ago
    Base load isn’t an advantage it’s simply the term for inflexible power delivery. “4h” batteries are being built at a lot of solar power plants which sounds minimal except they are only producing the equivalent of about 8h of power per day at maximum output and daytime demand is much higher. So those 4h batteries + solar actually covers grid demand much better than a similar nuclear reactor producing similar MWh per year at vastly lower prices.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Retric 5y ago

Nuclear is crazy expensive, which is a big part of why it’s in decline globally. Even with serious subsidies it just can’t compete with other sources. Just look at what unsubsidized insurance would cost to cover the full amount of any possible nuclear disaster. Realize nobody forces them to pay that and they still can’t compete on the open market. There is plenty of talk around lowering cost of construction, but even if you got a new reactor for build free it still wouldn’t be cost effective to operate and decommission it without subsidies if you’re only paid market rates for power.

Shadonototro 5y ago
again, the problem is always money maybe we should eliminate money from the equation? it seems to be very limiting
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  They have no problem funding CERN and ITER. Why not spend some on research for lower cost fission reactors.
roenxi 5y ago
It isn't in decline [0]. The world has mostly recovered from Fukushima-induced panic. Only Europe is holding the number back from being actual growth. > Nuclear is crazy expensive People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards. The suddenly COVID comes along and "this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory" it isn't even the safest opinion for an extremely hastily developed vaccine. Previously the record was something like 4 years, typically longer [1]. Turns out almost all that time is safety testing. Nuclear will be similar. The majority of the cost will be government regulation rather than any sort of intrinsic difficulty, and we'll have the technology to do it cheaply. It is simply unbelievable that the cost of this specific technology would go up over time, given that every other new technology we know of has the cost going down and usually radically. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy [1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed-in-record-time-but-are-these-game-changers-safe-150249 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed...
- coldtea 5y ago
  >People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards. Given how friendly nuclear with safety standards has been, nuclear with those pesky "overzealous safety standards" would be a hoot.
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    A free market without regulation would lead to safe and cheap nuclear energy. Is this a libertarian thing? We need a second planet far away from me where these experiments can be tested with willing participants.
    - danielheath 5y ago
      I’m not qualified to say whether Nuclear is a viable option or not, but the level of regulation is ridiculous compared to other energy sources. For instance, every Coal plant releases more radiation than any nuclear plant is permitted to. That’s far from a level playing field.
franciscop 5y ago
It is not, it's in fact one of the cheapest, look at the "coste marginal" in the table (only more expensive than solar and hydraulic): https://www.eoi.es/blogs/merme/coste-y-precio-de-las-diferentes-fuentes-de-energia-2/ https://www.eoi.es/blogs/merme/coste-y-precio-de-las-diferen...
- lostlogin 5y ago
  Has anyone ever generated a single watt of nuclear power and the bill for its cleanup been paid in full?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    Yes. Idk about Spain, but most countries provision the full decommissioning and cleanup costs upfront when building, which is part of the reasons why nuclear is expensive. Nobody does that for any of the alternatives ( of course the risk and costs there are quite lower, but still)
sofixa 5y ago
It is expensive, but so are the only viable alternatives when externalities are properly added ( fossil fuels). Renewables are unsuitable for base load without significant storage, which is only barely starting to get somewhat realistic ( pumped up hydro requires earthworks that destroy existing ecosystems, and large scale battery storage is IMHO a waste of precious battery manufacturing capacity that is better used elsewhere). Build nuclear, subsidise it, and run it for decades.
- Retric 5y ago
  Base load isn’t an advantage it’s simply the term for inflexible power delivery. “4h” batteries are being built at a lot of solar power plants which sounds minimal except they are only producing the equivalent of about 8h of power per day at maximum output and daytime demand is much higher. So those 4h batteries + solar actually covers grid demand much better than a similar nuclear reactor producing similar MWh per year at vastly lower prices.