5 ms·

Economic issues were caused in part by political opposition. An extreme degree of reviews and legal objections can't help the economics. And research into new

Economic issues were caused in part by political opposition. An extreme degree of reviews and legal objections can't help the economics. And research into new designs that might improve on economics and safety isn't going to be as profitable or as common if there is always going to be a virtually insurmountable hurdle of objections on spurious environmental grounds, so the economic pressure that has caused coal plants to become more efficient can't be applied. Plus, that coal vs nuclear economic calculation doesn't account for the costs of warming, nor for the intended electrification that abundant nuclear power was supposed to enable. It all has its roots in disproportionate opposition and silly old movies that portrayed nuclear plants as potentially exploding with ten megaton blasts.

Retric 5y ago
> And research into new designs that might improve on economics and safety isn't going to be as profitable or as common if there is always going to be a virtually insurmountable hurdle of objections on spurious environmental grounds, so the economic pressure that has caused coal plants to become more efficient can't be applied. The core economic issues aren’t based on the physical design of the reactors. Better designs might have dropped net costs by 20%, but that doesn’t allow you to follow the demand curve. It doesn’t allow you to operate without vast quantities of water. It doesn’t reduce fuel costs, or allow efficient operation in extreme temperatures. Let alone figure out reasonable regulations in a small corrupt country that’s just going to build one. Worse, the industry can’t afford to invest it’s own money in these kind of improvements. We aren’t talking 100’s of millions or low billions, were talking 10’s of billions that might possibly payoff decades in the future. People see Nuclear already reviving billions in research funding and it hasn’t really paid off yet. That’s what makes such investments difficult.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  It's clear these challenges don't nessesarially make Nuclear expensive when you look at France. They have the highest mix of Nuclear by some margin and the cheapest power in Western Europe.
  - phicoh 5y ago
    The problem seems to be that 'we' don't know how to build nuclear reactors anymore. France has to replace their aging nuclear powerplants in the next few decades. But building a new one proves to be very difficult. It is not clear to me what changed. There have been a few accidents. But Chernobyl is mostly unrelated to current reactors. Fukushima is of course more annoying but it doesn't explain why so many current projects that try build a nuclear powerplant are failing.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      The problem is more that we can't imagine decentralised open power.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      I suspect nuclear did as well as it did, in the past, because it was viewed as a thing that the best people should work on. Now, it's viewed as a backwater, or even a dead end. This won't attract the same kind of people.
  - derriz 5y ago
    France doesn't have the cheapest power in Europe. Even for non-households, they are beaten by a large margin by the likes of Denmark - where wind is the biggest source of generation. And household consumers pay pretty much the average European price for electricity. [1] If you want to look at France, google the most recent French attempt to add nuclear capacity - Flamanville 3. It's 15 years late and nearly 6 times over budget and still not operational. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Curious. Denmark has either the 2nd highest or the 4th lowest power prices in Europe depending on whether we're talking about household or non-household users. There must be something strange going on there beyond just having wind power, that is a huge divergence. Driven mainly by taxes I see.
- google234123 5y ago
  Imagine how cheap that will seem if we continue at the current inflation rates in 25 years :)
mbreese 5y ago
> silly old movies that portrayed nuclear plants as potentially exploding with ten megaton blasts Don’t forget the radioactive monsters/kaiju (Godzilla, et al) or fish (Simpsons). Those couldn’t have helped much either.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Simpsons showed no matter how corrupt management (Burns) and how incompetent staff (Homer), nuclear power was generally fine.
542354234235 5y ago
>that coal vs nuclear economic calculation doesn't account for the costs of warming, nor for the intended electrification that abundant nuclear power was supposed to enable. Even ignoring warming, coal externalizes a huge cost in the form of local pollution and its effects on health and destruction of natural resources.

Retric 5y ago

> And research into new designs that might improve on economics and safety isn't going to be as profitable or as common if there is always going to be a virtually insurmountable hurdle of objections on spurious environmental grounds, so the economic pressure that has caused coal plants to become more efficient can't be applied. The core economic issues aren’t based on the physical design of the reactors. Better designs might have dropped net costs by 20%, but that doesn’t allow you to follow the demand curve. It doesn’t allow you to operate without vast quantities of water. It doesn’t reduce fuel costs, or allow efficient operation in extreme temperatures. Let alone figure out reasonable regulations in a small corrupt country that’s just going to build one. Worse, the industry can’t afford to invest it’s own money in these kind of improvements. We aren’t talking 100’s of millions or low billions, were talking 10’s of billions that might possibly payoff decades in the future. People see Nuclear already reviving billions in research funding and it hasn’t really paid off yet. That’s what makes such investments difficult.

akvadrako 5y ago
It's clear these challenges don't nessesarially make Nuclear expensive when you look at France. They have the highest mix of Nuclear by some margin and the cheapest power in Western Europe.
- phicoh 5y ago
  The problem seems to be that 'we' don't know how to build nuclear reactors anymore. France has to replace their aging nuclear powerplants in the next few decades. But building a new one proves to be very difficult. It is not clear to me what changed. There have been a few accidents. But Chernobyl is mostly unrelated to current reactors. Fukushima is of course more annoying but it doesn't explain why so many current projects that try build a nuclear powerplant are failing.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    The problem is more that we can't imagine decentralised open power.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I suspect nuclear did as well as it did, in the past, because it was viewed as a thing that the best people should work on. Now, it's viewed as a backwater, or even a dead end. This won't attract the same kind of people.
- derriz 5y ago
  France doesn't have the cheapest power in Europe. Even for non-households, they are beaten by a large margin by the likes of Denmark - where wind is the biggest source of generation. And household consumers pay pretty much the average European price for electricity. [1] If you want to look at France, google the most recent French attempt to add nuclear capacity - Flamanville 3. It's 15 years late and nearly 6 times over budget and still not operational. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Curious. Denmark has either the 2nd highest or the 4th lowest power prices in Europe depending on whether we're talking about household or non-household users. There must be something strange going on there beyond just having wind power, that is a huge divergence. Driven mainly by taxes I see.
google234123 5y ago
Imagine how cheap that will seem if we continue at the current inflation rates in 25 years :)

mbreese 5y ago

> silly old movies that portrayed nuclear plants as potentially exploding with ten megaton blasts Don’t forget the radioactive monsters/kaiju (Godzilla, et al) or fish (Simpsons). Those couldn’t have helped much either.

iso1631 5y ago
Simpsons showed no matter how corrupt management (Burns) and how incompetent staff (Homer), nuclear power was generally fine.

542354234235 5y ago

>that coal vs nuclear economic calculation doesn't account for the costs of warming, nor for the intended electrification that abundant nuclear power was supposed to enable. Even ignoring warming, coal externalizes a huge cost in the form of local pollution and its effects on health and destruction of natural resources.