6 ms·

Nucler power is just too risky of an investment. You can set up a solar park in weeks, nothing compared to the decades of lobbying, nimby-backlash, getting the

by emsign 5y ago

Nucler power is just too risky of an investment. You can set up a solar park in weeks, nothing compared to the decades of lobbying, nimby-backlash, getting the planning permissions, financial risks and pouring billions into the nuclear plant. And you still need massive tax cuts and securities from the tax payers for it to be profitable, not to mention the government to help you out if the darn thing goes pop. A d Murphy know a nuclear power plant is one of the most complex machines we humans can built. Why would you do that as an energy company. Ask Tepco if they are happy. They aren't. The only countries that still build nuclear are the ones that massively promote it for political reasons and it's often countries with an or wanting to have an arsenal of atomic weapons, go figure. Nuclear is a dead horse unless.

ryan_j_naughton 5y ago
Nuclear costs so much because we haven't built reactors in decades. If we had been focused on nuclear innovation and deployment consistently since the 50s, then (a) we would have smaller nuclear facilities by now that are much easier to deploy and can't melt down and (b) operationalizing and deploying nuclear in general would be much cheaper. You have a headwind to doing an activity when you rarely engage in an activity. Chernobyl really messed us up in this regard, sadly.
- caoilte 5y ago
  How about 3 mile island or Fukushima or countless other times where we got lucky. Nuclear disasters are an inevitability with such a complex technology. I'm all in favour of more research into MSRs, but it could easily not work out to be efficient enough to scale. And solar/wind/storage/smart grid solutions are already here and demonstrably up to the job.
throwaway4good 5y ago
Incredible you get downvoted for this. You are absolutely correct; nuclear is disappearing because it is too costly and basically only makes sense if you want weapons. Look at the projects in the UK - delays for decades and massive budget overruns. Or Turkey if you to see something that is driven by dubious reasons ...
throwawayffffas 5y ago
While the building of nuclear plants indeed takes decades. I would like to point out that the US navy has taken delivery of 22 nuclear power-plants in the last 20 years for the Virginia class submarines[1] alone. If there was a real push for nuclear energy there would be a way to build a plant a year. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Boats_in_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Boats...
- throwawayffffas 5y ago
  Also each one of these submarines costs 2.8 billion dollars. Given the complexity of the submarines and the cost of other navy assets (1.8 billion for an Arleigh Burke destroyer), I think it would be safe to assume the cost of the reactor is under a billion dollars.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Those billion dollar reactors can't power a city though. Maybe a small town of a couple or three hundred people? For a billion dollars? ehhhhhhh
sofixa 5y ago
Something as paramount to daily life shouldn't be treated as an investment. Yes, it has significant upfront costs, but it generates energy for many decades ( there are literally reactors built in the 1950s still operating) and can't work in a "free market private capital" mode, but why should it? Railways, highways, dams, etc. don't. People need reliable energy. Everyone needs climate change to be reduced, mostly through CO2 emissions. Nuclear solves both of those for a very long time, stably and predictably. No other power generation method can do this at scale while being deployable almost everywhere ( geothermal and hydro are pretty great but don't work everywhere).
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Well, in the end someone has to pay the costs and that is the tax payer. That is why amongst the choices for energy production, the overall cheapest is the most popular. The state can help boost a new technology with subsidies, but in the long term, technologies have to be cost-effective. And nuclear power plants have a very bad track record on this, especially recent projects. The navy is not really a good comparison. First of all, they have large budgets and somewhat different risk tolerances than civil engineering. Powering submarines by solar power is also not a reasonable concept :p But Germany has some fuel-cell driven submarines, which get many benefits of nuclear ones, but of course with much shorter deployment times (max. 30 days).
Zigurd 5y ago
Not just a risky investment. The downside risk is too large to be insurable. Which is another form of privatized profit and socialized risk.
caoilte 5y ago
the only time you ever see these facts creeping out into the light of day is when politicians are attacking Iran for wanting to develop its nuclear programme. They all know that Iran's programme only makes sense to make nukes and they do occasionally hint at it.

by emsign 5y ago

ryan_j_naughton 5y ago

Nuclear costs so much because we haven't built reactors in decades. If we had been focused on nuclear innovation and deployment consistently since the 50s, then (a) we would have smaller nuclear facilities by now that are much easier to deploy and can't melt down and (b) operationalizing and deploying nuclear in general would be much cheaper. You have a headwind to doing an activity when you rarely engage in an activity. Chernobyl really messed us up in this regard, sadly.

caoilte 5y ago
How about 3 mile island or Fukushima or countless other times where we got lucky. Nuclear disasters are an inevitability with such a complex technology. I'm all in favour of more research into MSRs, but it could easily not work out to be efficient enough to scale. And solar/wind/storage/smart grid solutions are already here and demonstrably up to the job.

throwaway4good 5y ago

Incredible you get downvoted for this. You are absolutely correct; nuclear is disappearing because it is too costly and basically only makes sense if you want weapons. Look at the projects in the UK - delays for decades and massive budget overruns. Or Turkey if you to see something that is driven by dubious reasons ...

throwawayffffas 5y ago

While the building of nuclear plants indeed takes decades. I would like to point out that the US navy has taken delivery of 22 nuclear power-plants in the last 20 years for the Virginia class submarines[1] alone. If there was a real push for nuclear energy there would be a way to build a plant a year. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Boats_in_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine#Boats...

throwawayffffas 5y ago
Also each one of these submarines costs 2.8 billion dollars. Given the complexity of the submarines and the cost of other navy assets (1.8 billion for an Arleigh Burke destroyer), I think it would be safe to assume the cost of the reactor is under a billion dollars.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Those billion dollar reactors can't power a city though. Maybe a small town of a couple or three hundred people? For a billion dollars? ehhhhhhh

sofixa 5y ago

Something as paramount to daily life shouldn't be treated as an investment. Yes, it has significant upfront costs, but it generates energy for many decades ( there are literally reactors built in the 1950s still operating) and can't work in a "free market private capital" mode, but why should it? Railways, highways, dams, etc. don't. People need reliable energy. Everyone needs climate change to be reduced, mostly through CO2 emissions. Nuclear solves both of those for a very long time, stably and predictably. No other power generation method can do this at scale while being deployable almost everywhere ( geothermal and hydro are pretty great but don't work everywhere).

_ph_ 5y ago
Well, in the end someone has to pay the costs and that is the tax payer. That is why amongst the choices for energy production, the overall cheapest is the most popular. The state can help boost a new technology with subsidies, but in the long term, technologies have to be cost-effective. And nuclear power plants have a very bad track record on this, especially recent projects. The navy is not really a good comparison. First of all, they have large budgets and somewhat different risk tolerances than civil engineering. Powering submarines by solar power is also not a reasonable concept :p But Germany has some fuel-cell driven submarines, which get many benefits of nuclear ones, but of course with much shorter deployment times (max. 30 days).

Zigurd 5y ago

Not just a risky investment. The downside risk is too large to be insurable. Which is another form of privatized profit and socialized risk.

caoilte 5y ago

the only time you ever see these facts creeping out into the light of day is when politicians are attacking Iran for wanting to develop its nuclear programme. They all know that Iran's programme only makes sense to make nukes and they do occasionally hint at it.