4 ms·

It's not politics preventing nuclear power it's the eye watering cost. Unless you count getting taxpayers to shoulder the cost as politics.

by pydry 5y ago

inter_netuser 5y ago
solar panels killed more people in their short history, than nuclear power plants in their much longer history. if you count roof installers dying/getting injured on the job. do they count or we can just discount them?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Utility scale solar is built on the ground, no roof work required, very safe. The panels can be recycled almost entirely, similar to the utility scale battery storage that can back it. Tesla is scaling up utility storage manufacturing, Redwood Materials is scaling up recycling to close the loop and provide cheaper feedstock once there’s enough raw materials in the loop. Europe’s entire wind potential could power the world. New nuclear is a pipe dream (~10-15 years from breaking ground to first kWh produced), but old nuclear generators should be ran as long as safely possible. Big fail on Germany’s part here, although natural gas price spikes will force their hand on more renewables, transmission (including cross border interconnectors), and battery storage.
- pydry 5y ago
  I have seen some dubious statistics that downplay the number of deaths from nuclear accidents caused by cancer and play up the number of deaths caused by installing solar panels (e.g. by counting the number of people dying on roofs and assuming that most of them were up there installing panels).
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    Why not provide non-dubious statistics then? Looking forward to you providing us with hard numbers.
    - pydry 5y ago
      ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl. Can you find 20 people who have died installing solar panels? I found about 7 examples on google globally (3 in the US). The rest of the pages were the dubious statistics calculating "deaths per TWh" that both downplay cancer deaths from nuclear power and extrapolate tens of thousands of falling-off-rooftop-deaths if we generated as much electricity from our residential rooftops as we would from nuclear (which we wouldnt, rooftop solar will always be comparatively minor). This says very little about solar it just says that clambering about on roofs kills people.
      - neoromantique 5y ago
        While Chernobyl was a disaster , “ ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl.” is just ridiculous.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        > ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl. According to what number? This WHO article says it is estimated to be about 4000 deaths: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-... There were many much higher estimates made in 1986 when the disaster happened, but they turned out to be wrong. Apparently small amounts of radiation spread out over many people doesn't increase cancer rates. There were very noticeable increases in cancer near the disaster area, but most of those cancer patients survived. > A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
        pydry 5y ago
        https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/785/chernobyl-death-toll https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/785/cherno...
ativzzz 5y ago
It 100% is politics. For example in the US, our government is incapable of doing anything on a time scale of longer than 4-8 years because the party in power shifts and undoes everything the other party did during that time. Nuclear power is inherently authoritarian because it works best under unchanging centralized governments that can plan out a 30 year program without interference from other parties.
- pydry 5y ago
  It's just ridiculously capital intensive. If the government throws money at it it happens. Some of the costs of a nuclear weapons program can be shared. This is probably partly why France invested heavily in it and why countries keen on it coincidentall almos always have nuclear arsenals. It's unlikely it's because they're secretly authoritarian.
kortex 5y ago
> The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated to be between €59/MWh and €83/MWh (~$67-95). Way cheaper than nuclear in USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#:~:text=The%20actual%20cost%20of%20generating,MWh%20and%20%E2%82%AC83%2FMWh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#:~:t.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...
- cinntaile 5y ago
  I find it quite worrying that this cost is not disclosed, this makes me think it's higher than we assume.

It's not politics preventing nuclear power it's the eye watering cost. Unless you count getting taxpayers to shoulder the cost as politics.

by pydry 5y ago

It's not politics preventing nuclear power it's the eye watering cost. Unless you count getting taxpayers to shoulder the cost as politics.

inter_netuser 5y ago

solar panels killed more people in their short history, than nuclear power plants in their much longer history. if you count roof installers dying/getting injured on the job. do they count or we can just discount them?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
toomuchtodo 5y ago
Utility scale solar is built on the ground, no roof work required, very safe. The panels can be recycled almost entirely, similar to the utility scale battery storage that can back it. Tesla is scaling up utility storage manufacturing, Redwood Materials is scaling up recycling to close the loop and provide cheaper feedstock once there’s enough raw materials in the loop. Europe’s entire wind potential could power the world. New nuclear is a pipe dream (~10-15 years from breaking ground to first kWh produced), but old nuclear generators should be ran as long as safely possible. Big fail on Germany’s part here, although natural gas price spikes will force their hand on more renewables, transmission (including cross border interconnectors), and battery storage.
pydry 5y ago
I have seen some dubious statistics that downplay the number of deaths from nuclear accidents caused by cancer and play up the number of deaths caused by installing solar panels (e.g. by counting the number of people dying on roofs and assuming that most of them were up there installing panels).
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  Why not provide non-dubious statistics then? Looking forward to you providing us with hard numbers.
  - pydry 5y ago
    ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl. Can you find 20 people who have died installing solar panels? I found about 7 examples on google globally (3 in the US). The rest of the pages were the dubious statistics calculating "deaths per TWh" that both downplay cancer deaths from nuclear power and extrapolate tens of thousands of falling-off-rooftop-deaths if we generated as much electricity from our residential rooftops as we would from nuclear (which we wouldnt, rooftop solar will always be comparatively minor). This says very little about solar it just says that clambering about on roofs kills people.
    - neoromantique 5y ago
      While Chernobyl was a disaster , “ ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl.” is just ridiculous.
    - Jensson 5y ago
      > ~30,000 people died as a result of Chernobyl. According to what number? This WHO article says it is estimated to be about 4000 deaths: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-... There were many much higher estimates made in 1986 when the disaster happened, but they turned out to be wrong. Apparently small amounts of radiation spread out over many people doesn't increase cancer rates. There were very noticeable increases in cancer near the disaster area, but most of those cancer patients survived. > A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
      - pydry 5y ago
        https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/785/chernobyl-death-toll https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/785/cherno...

ativzzz 5y ago

It 100% is politics. For example in the US, our government is incapable of doing anything on a time scale of longer than 4-8 years because the party in power shifts and undoes everything the other party did during that time. Nuclear power is inherently authoritarian because it works best under unchanging centralized governments that can plan out a 30 year program without interference from other parties.

pydry 5y ago
It's just ridiculously capital intensive. If the government throws money at it it happens. Some of the costs of a nuclear weapons program can be shared. This is probably partly why France invested heavily in it and why countries keen on it coincidentall almos always have nuclear arsenals. It's unlikely it's because they're secretly authoritarian.

kortex 5y ago

> The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated to be between €59/MWh and €83/MWh (~$67-95). Way cheaper than nuclear in USA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#:~:text=The%20actual%20cost%20of%20generating,MWh%20and%20%E2%82%AC83%2FMWh https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#:~:t.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...

cinntaile 5y ago
I find it quite worrying that this cost is not disclosed, this makes me think it's higher than we assume.