4 ms·

I think you need to be careful here. There's this trope going on in circles of people who love nuclear tech that expensive plants are just expensive because of

by olau 5y ago

I think you need to be careful here. There's this trope going on in circles of people who love nuclear tech that expensive plants are just expensive because of X, where X can be environmentalists, government bureaucrats, old, bad designs (e.g. too large, or not using thorium, or not using molten salt, insert pet design issue here), lack of subsidy (e.g. government backed loans), etc. While there's probably some truth to it, I think it's ignoring the elephant in the room, that nuclear tech is just really difficult to get right, and that the bar has been upped as the nuclear engineering community has learned about new failure modes. Also, I think there's widespread agreement that current nuclear tech needs an oversight committee, just like aircraft tech. Even if it's incompatible with regulation nihilism.

kragen 5y ago
Well, I think the cost for converting thermal energy into electricity is high enough to make thermal energy uncompetitive with PV in most of the world, regardless of its source. So nuclear is unlikely to make a comeback unless there's a revolution (heh) in making steam turbines. I'm not sure why they're so much more expensive than coal plants, though, and I don't think "really difficult to get right" is an adequate reason; the first nuclear reactor was successfully built on a shoestring budget with technology that is now 79 years old. 79 years ago, lasers, jet airliners, artificial satellites, LEDs, lithium-ion batteries, pacemakers, antilock brakes, organ transplants, strong carbon fibers, high-pressure sodium lights, programmable computers, and bulletproof polymers were not just "really difficult to get right" but actually not yet achieved. Vast improvements have been made in many relevant technologies, including control systems, electronics, materials science and engineering, mathematical simulation, metrology, materials processing, heat engines, construction, and of course nuclear physics, not only since the Chicago Pile 1 but even since the end of the last wave of nuclear-power-plant construction in the US 40 years ago. I think it's totally plausible that the reason is that the right people (both investors and hackers) fled the field at the thought of having an "oversight committee" with veto power over their work, no incentive to not veto it, and either no experience designing nuclear plants, or experience doing so as employees of their competitors. I don't think that amounts to "regulation nihilism". Do naval reactors have the same problem?

by olau 5y ago

kragen 5y ago

Well, I think the cost for converting thermal energy into electricity is high enough to make thermal energy uncompetitive with PV in most of the world, regardless of its source. So nuclear is unlikely to make a comeback unless there's a revolution (heh) in making steam turbines. I'm not sure why they're so much more expensive than coal plants, though, and I don't think "really difficult to get right" is an adequate reason; the first nuclear reactor was successfully built on a shoestring budget with technology that is now 79 years old. 79 years ago, lasers, jet airliners, artificial satellites, LEDs, lithium-ion batteries, pacemakers, antilock brakes, organ transplants, strong carbon fibers, high-pressure sodium lights, programmable computers, and bulletproof polymers were not just "really difficult to get right" but actually not yet achieved. Vast improvements have been made in many relevant technologies, including control systems, electronics, materials science and engineering, mathematical simulation, metrology, materials processing, heat engines, construction, and of course nuclear physics, not only since the Chicago Pile 1 but even since the end of the last wave of nuclear-power-plant construction in the US 40 years ago. I think it's totally plausible that the reason is that the right people (both investors and hackers) fled the field at the thought of having an "oversight committee" with veto power over their work, no incentive to not veto it, and either no experience designing nuclear plants, or experience doing so as employees of their competitors. I don't think that amounts to "regulation nihilism". Do naval reactors have the same problem?