4 ms·

- Clean (carbon-free) Nuclear and a mix of available sources (wind, water, ground etc) - Not dependent on weather Nuclear, ground and dam's (aka water batter

by nix23 5y ago

- Clean (carbon-free) Nuclear and a mix of available sources (wind, water, ground etc) - Not dependent on weather Nuclear, ground and dam's (aka water batteries) - Economically viable Nuclear and a mix of available sources (wind, water, ground etc) BTW: Nothing is carbon free AtM

colinmhayes 5y ago
Nuclear is not even close to being economically viable atm. Making it economically viable probably isn't politically viable.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  This seems to largely be because we build new designs for almost every reactor, and change the regulation faster than projects get finished, so they have to get refitted part way through. The regulatory framework also makes it infeasible to finance small reactors. If we could build the same design over and over in a bunch of locations, with a common regulatory regime it would be much cheaper and much faster. That nuclear is slow and expensive to build is an artifact of infrequency and bad regulation.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    > If we could build the same design over and over in a bunch of locations, with a common regulatory regime it would be much cheaper and much faster. This not being possible is why I said making nuclear economically viable is not politically viable.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      I'm not so sure that's the case. I think the big push now in France and China could open the path to more nuclear elsewhere. I also think that if places start to have issues with grid stability or intermittency of power, they'll be inclined to give it a second look. That said, there could be some heretofore unexpected leap forward in battery tech, but that's not necessarily going to happen. The political situation in all of the West is moving rapidly and in unexpected ways lately, so the realm of what's possible could easily change.
- pjscott 5y ago
  China and South Korea can build nuclear plants at a per-megawatt capital cost similar to coal plants, so I agree that the problem looks political.

by nix23 5y ago

colinmhayes 5y ago

Nuclear is not even close to being economically viable atm. Making it economically viable probably isn't politically viable.

ch4s3 5y ago
This seems to largely be because we build new designs for almost every reactor, and change the regulation faster than projects get finished, so they have to get refitted part way through. The regulatory framework also makes it infeasible to finance small reactors. If we could build the same design over and over in a bunch of locations, with a common regulatory regime it would be much cheaper and much faster. That nuclear is slow and expensive to build is an artifact of infrequency and bad regulation.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > If we could build the same design over and over in a bunch of locations, with a common regulatory regime it would be much cheaper and much faster. This not being possible is why I said making nuclear economically viable is not politically viable.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    I'm not so sure that's the case. I think the big push now in France and China could open the path to more nuclear elsewhere. I also think that if places start to have issues with grid stability or intermittency of power, they'll be inclined to give it a second look. That said, there could be some heretofore unexpected leap forward in battery tech, but that's not necessarily going to happen. The political situation in all of the West is moving rapidly and in unexpected ways lately, so the realm of what's possible could easily change.
pjscott 5y ago
China and South Korea can build nuclear plants at a per-megawatt capital cost similar to coal plants, so I agree that the problem looks political.