3 ms·

I imagine there are probably ways to make nuclear power cheaper than it is without sacrificing safety, but can it compete purely on cost with solar and wind, or

by elihu 5y ago

I imagine there are probably ways to make nuclear power cheaper than it is without sacrificing safety, but can it compete purely on cost with solar and wind, or even coal and natural gas? If you have a plan to fix the regulatory environment in a way that makes it cheaper than fossil fuels (ignoring long term hidden costs of fossil fuel use), then by all means advocate for that. I just think that we shouldn't assume that the technical, economic, and political hurdles will be overcome. Wind and solar are the cheapest option we have right now, so I think that's what we should plan to use. If another better option becomes available we can use it too. I just don't think we should put our eggs in the "nuclear will save us" basket. Maybe it could, but maybe it won't and we need a plan B.

lukeschlather 5y ago
Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  how are you getting that coal is not profitable? Demand for coal is at an all time high. Check out coal prices. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal We are also producing more coal than ever before (modulo the dip during covid lockdowns), and coal use is projected to increase: "Global coal production is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3% between 2021 and 2025 to reach 8.8 billion t in 2025. While thermal coal production is expected to have a relatively marginal 2% CAGR to reach 7549.6 million t, metallurgical coal is forecast to register stronger growth of 4.2% per year, to reach 1216.9 million t in 2025."[1] [1]https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html
  - elihu 5y ago
    By that chart it looks like mining coal is quite profitable. On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from coal, high coal prices make generating electricity from coal more expensive, and thus less competitive with nuclear or renewables.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      The price represents the intersection of supply and demand. Since supply of coal is steady, the higher price is coming from an increase in demand. Of course coal purchasers would prefer a lower price, but the fact that the price is high is proof that there is great demand for coal. This does not mean that there is not demand for renewables, either. Both the usage of renewables and the usage of coal is predicted to increase. See https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49976 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49976 Increases in coal-fired generation in Other non-OECD Asia—which includes Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, among other countries—will account for over 75% of our projected increase in global coal-fired generation from 2030 to 2050. For Other non-OECD Asia, we project that renewable energy sources will account for about 60% of the generation increase over the projection period, primarily from wind and solar. Coal-fired generation will account for nearly all of the remaining growth.
naasking 5y ago
From what I've read, most cost and time overruns from nuclear are due to lots of design revisions during construction to make site-specific adaptations that need to be intensively reviewed, approved, revised, over and over again. Small modular reactors are designed to address this since they're preassembled at the factory and small enough that you can easily just move the reactor to adjust for any site adaptations. Unfortunately still years away from approval.
yCombLinks 5y ago
It is the solution to the climate change problem caused by coal and natural gas. Competing with their price should not be in the equation. Your second paragraph seems hostile, no, I don't have a plan and won't submit one.
- elihu 5y ago
  Sadly competing with coal and natural gas on cost is relevant. I think we should close those plants as soon as possible even if it means replacing them with a more expensive option, but sometimes it's hard to get political traction on things that cost more. Solar and wind tends to be cheaper than fossil fuels, anyways, though that might not be true if you have to factor in batteries. (Whether that's an issue is geography-dependent: I'm in Oregon, and we get a lot of our power from hydroelectric, which means we can use bodies of water essentially as capacitors to buffer out the irregularities in wind and solar. The East coast doesn't really have that option.) I don't mean to be hostile, I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, nuclear is expensive which means that people who are looking to get the most power for the least cost probably are going to go with wind and solar. If we can somehow make nuclear cost competitive then that's great but I don't know what's needed for that to happen and in the mean time I think the sensible thing is to treat nuclear as something that might work, but we aren't counting on it.

by elihu 5y ago

lukeschlather 5y ago

Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.

rsj_hn 5y ago
how are you getting that coal is not profitable? Demand for coal is at an all time high. Check out coal prices. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal We are also producing more coal than ever before (modulo the dip during covid lockdowns), and coal use is projected to increase: "Global coal production is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3% between 2021 and 2025 to reach 8.8 billion t in 2025. While thermal coal production is expected to have a relatively marginal 2% CAGR to reach 7549.6 million t, metallurgical coal is forecast to register stronger growth of 4.2% per year, to reach 1216.9 million t in 2025."[1] [1]https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html
- elihu 5y ago
  By that chart it looks like mining coal is quite profitable. On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from coal, high coal prices make generating electricity from coal more expensive, and thus less competitive with nuclear or renewables.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    The price represents the intersection of supply and demand. Since supply of coal is steady, the higher price is coming from an increase in demand. Of course coal purchasers would prefer a lower price, but the fact that the price is high is proof that there is great demand for coal. This does not mean that there is not demand for renewables, either. Both the usage of renewables and the usage of coal is predicted to increase. See https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49976 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49976 Increases in coal-fired generation in Other non-OECD Asia—which includes Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand, among other countries—will account for over 75% of our projected increase in global coal-fired generation from 2030 to 2050. For Other non-OECD Asia, we project that renewable energy sources will account for about 60% of the generation increase over the projection period, primarily from wind and solar. Coal-fired generation will account for nearly all of the remaining growth.

naasking 5y ago

From what I've read, most cost and time overruns from nuclear are due to lots of design revisions during construction to make site-specific adaptations that need to be intensively reviewed, approved, revised, over and over again. Small modular reactors are designed to address this since they're preassembled at the factory and small enough that you can easily just move the reactor to adjust for any site adaptations. Unfortunately still years away from approval.

yCombLinks 5y ago

It is the solution to the climate change problem caused by coal and natural gas. Competing with their price should not be in the equation. Your second paragraph seems hostile, no, I don't have a plan and won't submit one.

elihu 5y ago
Sadly competing with coal and natural gas on cost is relevant. I think we should close those plants as soon as possible even if it means replacing them with a more expensive option, but sometimes it's hard to get political traction on things that cost more. Solar and wind tends to be cheaper than fossil fuels, anyways, though that might not be true if you have to factor in batteries. (Whether that's an issue is geography-dependent: I'm in Oregon, and we get a lot of our power from hydroelectric, which means we can use bodies of water essentially as capacitors to buffer out the irregularities in wind and solar. The East coast doesn't really have that option.) I don't mean to be hostile, I'm just saying that as far as I understand it, nuclear is expensive which means that people who are looking to get the most power for the least cost probably are going to go with wind and solar. If we can somehow make nuclear cost competitive then that's great but I don't know what's needed for that to happen and in the mean time I think the sensible thing is to treat nuclear as something that might work, but we aren't counting on it.