5 ms·

What If We Had Subsidized Nuclear Power Like Renewables

31 points by akvadrako 5y ago

daemin 5y ago
I think in some countries it should be "What if we had subsidised Nuclear Power like Coal Mining".
- akvadrako 5y ago
  This is US focused, but most places where nuclear is an option probably follow the same trend explained in the article. What country are you referring to?
  - daemin 5y ago
    In this case Australia, one of the largest coal exporters in the world.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
Not finished reading yet but this uses the outdated stats that claim nuclear kills less people than solar and wind. Which isn't a good sign. It's also claiming that centralisation equals efficiency. Is this really the best argument nuclear has to offer? Okay so that wasn't very good. Just standard renewable bashing disguised as being a fan of the sadly neglected nuclear. The key thesis seems to be: renewables came down in price because they were subsidized. I'd argue the opposite is true, they were subsidized initially because it was obvious they would become price competitive. What even is the point of writing an article about what we should have done decades ago (which I actually agree with) if your super weak conclusion is just "well renewables might not be perfect". It's hard to tell if this is first generation climate change denial or just secondary effects of decades of propaganda. Still dangerous nonsense though.
- ciaron 5y ago
  > uses the outdated stats that claim nuclear kills less people than solar and wind. What's the latest data on this? I had also assumed this was still the case.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    If you follow the link he provides to himself, then follow that link to it's cite, then follow that link to the source he's trying to cite you'll see they actually updated their numbers and now show nuclear as behind wind and solar (though obviously still far ahead of gas and especially coal): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I'm not even sure they ever had solar and wind, around that time it was fashionable to say "nuclear is safer than any other power source" and link to studies that didn't even include renewables. edit, actually confirmed this as the intermediate blog still has the old table screenshoted which shows nuclear in the lead, but only against coal oil gas etc, no renewables other than biomass (some of which is good and some of which is bad, it's a wide category). But regardless of that, there were a few studies calculated around 2012 that showed solar and wind as slightly worse than nuclear per TWh as they hadn't scaled up and been producing for as long and the deaths are generally front loaded, while the generation is constantly growing and the stat naturally biases against new tech that has a construction phase before generation starts.
    - iwjfbnfirk 5y ago
      The article mentioned “nuclear power kills fewer people per electricity produced than any other energy source” which matches the data from the link you posted. Nuclear accounts for 4% energy at 0.07 deaths, while solar and wind are at 2% 0.04 deaths and 1% 0.02 deaths respectively.
    - KptMarchewa 5y ago
      Deaths due to nuclear and renewables are both negligible. There's no point in discussing it where there are common sources causing few orders of magnitude more.
    - belorn 5y ago
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  The point of nuclear power is like government funded health insurance. It’s a safety net that isn’t profitable (or shouldn’t be), but provides enormous value provided it’s well run and limited in scope.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Both those things are "profitable" at the societal level. Nuclear has two problems. One, for people who choose to ignore externalities, it's not competitive with coal (though it's obviously cheaper if you include them). But if you do include externalities, it hits problem 2, it's still more expensive than building lots of wind and solar. This leaves it in this awkward position where only the people who believe (or claim to believe) renewables are this intermittent, subsidy driven boondoggle support it and all their arguments allegedly in favour of nuclear in the end boil down to "renewables are crap" which isn't actually true but is a very well funded alternative fact.
    - jeherr 5y ago
      Wind and solar face the problem that you can't just start generating power as needed when you're running low. It's good to have a hedge against that scenario which itself does not produce much carbon, because people die when power outages happen. It's just the safe bet to include nuclear power for now until we can be more certain of our ability to generate enough power to scale with growing populations. Why would we risk not having the infrastructure to be flexible in case of uncertainties? Can we say for certain that weather patterns will not change in a way that affects wind and solar in the future? It just seems like we shouldn't just dive in head first without an alternative.
    - kesselvon 5y ago
      Wind and solar are condition dependent, nuclear runs all the time, consistently.
    - belorn 5y ago
      Comments like yours is why I have a simple but working solution to the discussion. When we ban consumer from buying cars that consume fossil fuels in 2025, we should also ban consumption of energy produced by fossil fuel. No more coal, oil and gas in the energy grid. We also have a full stop in subsidizing fossil fuels in the name of "reserve energy", where governments are paying companies to be ready with fossil fuels when the demand in the energy grid goes beyond supply. What happens next happens. What ever subsidies my own government need to pay in order to prevent blackouts will have to be paid to any non-fossil fuel alternatives. If batteries is cheapest then use that. If overproduction is cheapest, use that. If nuclear is cheapest, well then that will be that. Subsidy driven fossil fuels has to stop. If nuclear is cheaper than building lots of wind and solar, then wind and solar has a problem.
moogly 5y ago
Well, to be fair, we should probably include all past government-led funding and research, not to mention that the plants are underinsured (taxpayers will have to foot the bill if an accident occurs), so technically, it's not unsubsidized.
blunte 5y ago
I call bullshit on this: “More lately, renewable energy has been the main beneficiary of the government's benevolence, receiving more than three times as federal incentives as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear combined” This is simply not possible, although it would take a very lengthy breakdown to show the real numbers. Many of the subsidies for oil and gas are just not counted by some groups, but that is intentional. And then you have delayed costs which at borne by the people, such as unlivable areas due to earthquakes or groundwater contamination which are also often not counted.

31 points by akvadrako 5y ago

daemin 5y ago

I think in some countries it should be "What if we had subsidised Nuclear Power like Coal Mining".

akvadrako 5y ago
This is US focused, but most places where nuclear is an option probably follow the same trend explained in the article. What country are you referring to?
- daemin 5y ago
  In this case Australia, one of the largest coal exporters in the world.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

Not finished reading yet but this uses the outdated stats that claim nuclear kills less people than solar and wind. Which isn't a good sign. It's also claiming that centralisation equals efficiency. Is this really the best argument nuclear has to offer? Okay so that wasn't very good. Just standard renewable bashing disguised as being a fan of the sadly neglected nuclear. The key thesis seems to be: renewables came down in price because they were subsidized. I'd argue the opposite is true, they were subsidized initially because it was obvious they would become price competitive. What even is the point of writing an article about what we should have done decades ago (which I actually agree with) if your super weak conclusion is just "well renewables might not be perfect". It's hard to tell if this is first generation climate change denial or just secondary effects of decades of propaganda. Still dangerous nonsense though.

ciaron 5y ago
> uses the outdated stats that claim nuclear kills less people than solar and wind. What's the latest data on this? I had also assumed this was still the case.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  If you follow the link he provides to himself, then follow that link to it's cite, then follow that link to the source he's trying to cite you'll see they actually updated their numbers and now show nuclear as behind wind and solar (though obviously still far ahead of gas and especially coal): https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy I'm not even sure they ever had solar and wind, around that time it was fashionable to say "nuclear is safer than any other power source" and link to studies that didn't even include renewables. edit, actually confirmed this as the intermediate blog still has the old table screenshoted which shows nuclear in the lead, but only against coal oil gas etc, no renewables other than biomass (some of which is good and some of which is bad, it's a wide category). But regardless of that, there were a few studies calculated around 2012 that showed solar and wind as slightly worse than nuclear per TWh as they hadn't scaled up and been producing for as long and the deaths are generally front loaded, while the generation is constantly growing and the stat naturally biases against new tech that has a construction phase before generation starts.
  - iwjfbnfirk 5y ago
    The article mentioned “nuclear power kills fewer people per electricity produced than any other energy source” which matches the data from the link you posted. Nuclear accounts for 4% energy at 0.07 deaths, while solar and wind are at 2% 0.04 deaths and 1% 0.02 deaths respectively.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    Deaths due to nuclear and renewables are both negligible. There's no point in discussing it where there are common sources causing few orders of magnitude more.
  - belorn 5y ago
nobodyandproud 5y ago
The point of nuclear power is like government funded health insurance. It’s a safety net that isn’t profitable (or shouldn’t be), but provides enormous value provided it’s well run and limited in scope.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Both those things are "profitable" at the societal level. Nuclear has two problems. One, for people who choose to ignore externalities, it's not competitive with coal (though it's obviously cheaper if you include them). But if you do include externalities, it hits problem 2, it's still more expensive than building lots of wind and solar. This leaves it in this awkward position where only the people who believe (or claim to believe) renewables are this intermittent, subsidy driven boondoggle support it and all their arguments allegedly in favour of nuclear in the end boil down to "renewables are crap" which isn't actually true but is a very well funded alternative fact.
  - jeherr 5y ago
    Wind and solar face the problem that you can't just start generating power as needed when you're running low. It's good to have a hedge against that scenario which itself does not produce much carbon, because people die when power outages happen. It's just the safe bet to include nuclear power for now until we can be more certain of our ability to generate enough power to scale with growing populations. Why would we risk not having the infrastructure to be flexible in case of uncertainties? Can we say for certain that weather patterns will not change in a way that affects wind and solar in the future? It just seems like we shouldn't just dive in head first without an alternative.
  - kesselvon 5y ago
    Wind and solar are condition dependent, nuclear runs all the time, consistently.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Comments like yours is why I have a simple but working solution to the discussion. When we ban consumer from buying cars that consume fossil fuels in 2025, we should also ban consumption of energy produced by fossil fuel. No more coal, oil and gas in the energy grid. We also have a full stop in subsidizing fossil fuels in the name of "reserve energy", where governments are paying companies to be ready with fossil fuels when the demand in the energy grid goes beyond supply. What happens next happens. What ever subsidies my own government need to pay in order to prevent blackouts will have to be paid to any non-fossil fuel alternatives. If batteries is cheapest then use that. If overproduction is cheapest, use that. If nuclear is cheapest, well then that will be that. Subsidy driven fossil fuels has to stop. If nuclear is cheaper than building lots of wind and solar, then wind and solar has a problem.

moogly 5y ago

Well, to be fair, we should probably include all past government-led funding and research, not to mention that the plants are underinsured (taxpayers will have to foot the bill if an accident occurs), so technically, it's not unsubsidized.

blunte 5y ago

I call bullshit on this: “More lately, renewable energy has been the main beneficiary of the government's benevolence, receiving more than three times as federal incentives as oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear combined” This is simply not possible, although it would take a very lengthy breakdown to show the real numbers. Many of the subsidies for oil and gas are just not counted by some groups, but that is intentional. And then you have delayed costs which at borne by the people, such as unlivable areas due to earthquakes or groundwater contamination which are also often not counted.