3 ms·

>Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires garga

by pydry 5y ago

>Nuclear isn't so simple, but has unique advantages Its advantages are dwindling compared to solar/wind/battery/pumped hydro/demand shaping. It requires gargantuan subsidies to even exist. For instance, the nuclear industry in the US has barraged us with propaganda about how really incredibly safe it is and how overregulated they are but insurers will still refuse to insure a nuclear plant unless 99% of the liability for accident cleanup is placed on taxpayer shoulders. Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. This is realistically why the US, UK and France keep it but Germany doesnt think it's worth it. These three elephants in the room: cost, accident liability and nuclear arsenals are invariably absent from media discussions about nuclear power in the US largely because of who drives the discussion.

lucb1e 5y ago
> Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.
- pydry 5y ago
  I bring it up because while it looms large in the minds of policymakers and is a large factor in their decision-making it almost never gets discussed in the media. The question of who insures nuclear plants (always taxpayers) is likewise something else that is always curiously whitewashed out of American media. Most of the advantages other than the nuclear arsenal one, on the other hand, are repeated frequently and are very well known.
SonicTheSith 5y ago
The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fairly high. On the other hand once shit hits the fans with climate change shit really hits the fan but with the quantity of New York City's total sewage from the last 5 decades. The thought that we will be able to recycle nuclear waste in 200+ years is more reliable than any promise Elon Musk has ever given.
- pydry 5y ago
  >While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question. As far as I can see that answer may be yes in one specific circumstance - when you already have a nuclear plant with another 5+ years of life left. i.e. when the insane capex is a sunk cost. In all other instances it only really comes close if you assume the risk of nuclear disaster is close to zero or if you pretend that the precipitous fall in solar/wind/battery prices didnt happen yet.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    > Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question. I believe that’s the wrong question to ask. We need nuclear to be cheaper and more attractive than coal and oil (and later natural gas). If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great and eventually the nuclear plants can be phased out in favour of those. In the meantime however we need to get rid of coal and oil, because that’s where the overwhelmingly most emissions are.
    - pydry 5y ago
      >If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great Ok. So, what if that already happened? >In the meantime however The meantime is past. Arguably it lasted until latest 2020 which was the last time grid scale batteries were expensive. 2014 was the last time solar or wind were expensive. Meanwhile, if you tried to commission a new nuclear plant now it wouldnt be running until 2030 earliest and possibly later (hinkley point C will take 20 years). A new battery/wind/solar farm usually takes a year and theyre still plunging in price.
      - Swenrekcah 5y ago
        If that already happened then that's great. It's the first I'm hearing about it but I don't work in the sector so that's fair. Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/wind. This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies. CO2 is the enemy, we must focus on that. Point well taken about how long the nuclear projects take, that's why natural gas a bridge is important. I want purely renewable energy just as much as you but I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have. Everything that helps, helps. Until the point where it doesn't and then that's the time to address that.

by pydry 5y ago

lucb1e 5y ago

> Its main advantage is that it can mitigate some of the costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal With such arguments, there really is no point having a discussion. You know that's not the advantages I was referring to (since they're in the very next sentence you're quoting) and you're ignoring that completely.

pydry 5y ago
I bring it up because while it looms large in the minds of policymakers and is a large factor in their decision-making it almost never gets discussed in the media. The question of who insures nuclear plants (always taxpayers) is likewise something else that is always curiously whitewashed out of American media. Most of the advantages other than the nuclear arsenal one, on the other hand, are repeated frequently and are very well known.

SonicTheSith 5y ago

The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fairly high. On the other hand once shit hits the fans with climate change shit really hits the fan but with the quantity of New York City's total sewage from the last 5 decades. The thought that we will be able to recycle nuclear waste in 200+ years is more reliable than any promise Elon Musk has ever given.

pydry 5y ago
>While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question. As far as I can see that answer may be yes in one specific circumstance - when you already have a nuclear plant with another 5+ years of life left. i.e. when the insane capex is a sunk cost. In all other instances it only really comes close if you assume the risk of nuclear disaster is close to zero or if you pretend that the precipitous fall in solar/wind/battery prices didnt happen yet.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  > Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question. I believe that’s the wrong question to ask. We need nuclear to be cheaper and more attractive than coal and oil (and later natural gas). If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great and eventually the nuclear plants can be phased out in favour of those. In the meantime however we need to get rid of coal and oil, because that’s where the overwhelmingly most emissions are.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great Ok. So, what if that already happened? >In the meantime however The meantime is past. Arguably it lasted until latest 2020 which was the last time grid scale batteries were expensive. 2014 was the last time solar or wind were expensive. Meanwhile, if you tried to commission a new nuclear plant now it wouldnt be running until 2030 earliest and possibly later (hinkley point C will take 20 years). A new battery/wind/solar farm usually takes a year and theyre still plunging in price.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      If that already happened then that's great. It's the first I'm hearing about it but I don't work in the sector so that's fair. Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/wind. This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies. CO2 is the enemy, we must focus on that. Point well taken about how long the nuclear projects take, that's why natural gas a bridge is important. I want purely renewable energy just as much as you but I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have. Everything that helps, helps. Until the point where it doesn't and then that's the time to address that.