5 ms·

It's a clown argument as it pertains to climate change or climate issues in general. For example: > Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. We don't need

It's a clown argument as it pertains to climate change or climate issues in general. For example: > Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. We don't need it to be cheap (and it should be subsidized as far as consumers are concerned re cost). Who in the past few decades has successfully argued that nuclear is inexpensive? Nobody is making that argument, it's a straw-argument the author set up. We need it to produce energy at massive scale and reliably. Nuclear does that, and it's a technology we can keep improving upon (we should have spent the last 40-50 years aggressively improving upon it with large R&D expenditures; best time to plant a tree and all that). Current US energy mix is coal at ~19.3% and nuclear at ~19.7% (2020 EIA numbers). That's 93 nuclear reactors or less to wipe out US coal use. Hit the print button, get it to it already. In terms of US contributions on climate, that'd be a huge win. And more realistically, we could build toward 1/3 nuclear mix (instead of ~40%), while traditional renewables continue to expand, which would wipe out coal's share in tandem.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
So your non expert opinion is superior to that of four regulators who oversaw the tech in question? Show your work. Wind and solar are cheap and abundant, and will continue to be so. No waste risk, no proliferation concerns, no catastrophic failure modes, and very little permitting (compared to nuclear). Clean power for decades once installed. It boggles the mind that the armchair engineers continue to advocate for a technology subject matter experts conclude is a dead end. Nuclear advocates might as well be in the same camp as climate deniers. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 (Renewables account for most new U.S. electricity generating capacity in 2021) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.01.11/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.01.11/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 (Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.01.10/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.01.10/main.svg https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/26/sunrise-brief-the-interconnection-queue-in-the-us-jumped-from-139gwac-in-2019-to-639gwac-today-a-true-solar-tsunami/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/26/sunrise-brief-the-int... (Solar interconnection queue in the US jumped from 139GWac in 2019 to 639GWac today) https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-renewable-pipeline-poised-to-add-172-5-gw-through-2024-61902543 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... (US renewable pipeline poised to add 172.5 GW through 2024)
- Bud 5y ago
  It's actually not true that wind and solar have "no waste risk". They both produce large amounts of waste, actually, some of which is toxic. Granted, it's not nuclear waste, but it's waste nonetheless. It's also plainly not accurate to compare nuclear advocates to climate deniers. Whether nuclear is still a good option is still an entirely legitimate debate with good points to be had on both sides.
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  I was a nuclear engineer in a past life. Your appeal to biased experts does nothing to further the discussion. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, so you breathlessly appeal to those who agree with you, all the while comparing those arguing in good faith, to another group you disagree with. In short, you’re a mess.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    On the other hand, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      My salary is nothing nuclear related. So, what’s your point?
      - coldtea 5y ago
        That we can just change "depends upon" to "depended upon", and it works the same. Unlike the "former nuclear leaders", most aren't gonna bad mouth an industry they work or worked for - and to work for it, they also shared all its premises.
        imwillofficial 5y ago
        Having no clue as to why I left the industry, your point is a stretch to say the least.
cbmuser 5y ago
Russia built two Gen III+ reactors with 1200 MW each at the site of the existing Novovoronezh nuclear power plant for just about three billion Euros (250 billion Rubles). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Plant_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Pla... Germany spends 20-30 billion Euros every year on its subsidies for renewable energies (EEG-Umlage): > https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monitoringberichte/Monitoringbericht_Energie2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monito... (page 32) Nuclear isn’t expensive if you do it right.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Currently not going swimmingly adapting the VVER to western standards though. Looking to be at least €8 B if everything goes to plan, which would be lunacy to bank on given all other western examples. I wonder why only autocratic governments manage to build them? > On 21 December 2018, Fennovoima announced that it had received a new schedule to receive the construction license and start construction of the plant in 2021. The commercial operation should start in 2028.[21] > In April 2021, Fennovoima announced that bringing the design and licensing material to the level of Finnish requirements has taken longer than expected. The company estimated that it could obtain the construction license in 2022 and that construction of the power plant would begin in 2023. Commercial operation of the plant would begin in 2029.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - fuoqi 5y ago
    First, let's start with the fact that €8B is a wrong number. The last estimate is €7–7.5B. Next, you should consider the following factors: - The Finish nuclear regulation is quite paranoid, even by "western" standards. Also add political pressure on the top of it. - The project probably includes significant modification of the standard Russian design. Meaning additional design and certification costs. While Russia and most other foreign countries use mostly "standard" designs. But note that it's effectively a one-time cost, i.e. it will not apply to the same extent to additional reactors in the same country. - It's a greenfield project, meaning the cost includes supporting infrastructure. Building additional reactors at an existing site or close to it will be noticeably cheaper (as the case with VVERs build today in Russia). - Usually, in such projects the hosting side wrestles as much as possible for stuff to be built and procured locally. Meaning, labor and materials which are relatively cheap in Russia/Turkey/Egypt/etc. will cost 1.5-3x more in Finland.
coldtea 5y ago
>It's a clown argument Yeah, what do the experts in charge of nuclear evergy policies in 4 major western countries know. It's better to trust the opinion of random nuclear fans on the web, or the "facts" of nuclear commercial industry astroturfers...

toomuchtodo 5y ago

So your non expert opinion is superior to that of four regulators who oversaw the tech in question? Show your work. Wind and solar are cheap and abundant, and will continue to be so. No waste risk, no proliferation concerns, no catastrophic failure modes, and very little permitting (compared to nuclear). Clean power for decades once installed. It boggles the mind that the armchair engineers continue to advocate for a technology subject matter experts conclude is a dead end. Nuclear advocates might as well be in the same camp as climate deniers. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416 (Renewables account for most new U.S. electricity generating capacity in 2021) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.01.11/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2021.01.11/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50818 (Solar power will account for nearly half of new U.S. electric generating capacity in 2022) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.01.10/main.svg https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2022.01.10/main.svg https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/26/sunrise-brief-the-interconnection-queue-in-the-us-jumped-from-139gwac-in-2019-to-639gwac-today-a-true-solar-tsunami/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/01/26/sunrise-brief-the-int... (Solar interconnection queue in the US jumped from 139GWac in 2019 to 639GWac today) https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-renewable-pipeline-poised-to-add-172-5-gw-through-2024-61902543 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights... (US renewable pipeline poised to add 172.5 GW through 2024)

Bud 5y ago
It's actually not true that wind and solar have "no waste risk". They both produce large amounts of waste, actually, some of which is toxic. Granted, it's not nuclear waste, but it's waste nonetheless. It's also plainly not accurate to compare nuclear advocates to climate deniers. Whether nuclear is still a good option is still an entirely legitimate debate with good points to be had on both sides.
imwillofficial 5y ago
I was a nuclear engineer in a past life. Your appeal to biased experts does nothing to further the discussion. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about, so you breathlessly appeal to those who agree with you, all the while comparing those arguing in good faith, to another group you disagree with. In short, you’re a mess.
- coldtea 5y ago
  On the other hand, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    My salary is nothing nuclear related. So, what’s your point?
    - coldtea 5y ago
      That we can just change "depends upon" to "depended upon", and it works the same. Unlike the "former nuclear leaders", most aren't gonna bad mouth an industry they work or worked for - and to work for it, they also shared all its premises.
      - imwillofficial 5y ago
        Having no clue as to why I left the industry, your point is a stretch to say the least.

cbmuser 5y ago

Russia built two Gen III+ reactors with 1200 MW each at the site of the existing Novovoronezh nuclear power plant for just about three billion Euros (250 billion Rubles). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Plant_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Pla... Germany spends 20-30 billion Euros every year on its subsidies for renewable energies (EEG-Umlage): > https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monitoringberichte/Monitoringbericht_Energie2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monito... (page 32) Nuclear isn’t expensive if you do it right.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Currently not going swimmingly adapting the VVER to western standards though. Looking to be at least €8 B if everything goes to plan, which would be lunacy to bank on given all other western examples. I wonder why only autocratic governments manage to build them? > On 21 December 2018, Fennovoima announced that it had received a new schedule to receive the construction license and start construction of the plant in 2021. The commercial operation should start in 2028.[21] > In April 2021, Fennovoima announced that bringing the design and licensing material to the level of Finnish requirements has taken longer than expected. The company estimated that it could obtain the construction license in 2022 and that construction of the power plant would begin in 2023. Commercial operation of the plant would begin in 2029.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- fuoqi 5y ago
  First, let's start with the fact that €8B is a wrong number. The last estimate is €7–7.5B. Next, you should consider the following factors: - The Finish nuclear regulation is quite paranoid, even by "western" standards. Also add political pressure on the top of it. - The project probably includes significant modification of the standard Russian design. Meaning additional design and certification costs. While Russia and most other foreign countries use mostly "standard" designs. But note that it's effectively a one-time cost, i.e. it will not apply to the same extent to additional reactors in the same country. - It's a greenfield project, meaning the cost includes supporting infrastructure. Building additional reactors at an existing site or close to it will be noticeably cheaper (as the case with VVERs build today in Russia). - Usually, in such projects the hosting side wrestles as much as possible for stuff to be built and procured locally. Meaning, labor and materials which are relatively cheap in Russia/Turkey/Egypt/etc. will cost 1.5-3x more in Finland.

coldtea 5y ago

>It's a clown argument Yeah, what do the experts in charge of nuclear evergy policies in 4 major western countries know. It's better to trust the opinion of random nuclear fans on the web, or the "facts" of nuclear commercial industry astroturfers...