5 ms·

I like the engineering of nuclear power plants, but I'm not particularly biased towards them over renewables. But we need to greatly improve energy storage if

I like the engineering of nuclear power plants, but I'm not particularly biased towards them over renewables. But we need to greatly improve energy storage if renewables are going to work. Places like Scotland have generated equivalent to around 97% of their entire electricity consumption from renewables - yet still consume around 13% of their energy from fossil fuels as they export the renewable energy at peak production.[1] I also just really don't like the misinformation that surrounds nuclear energy. I majored in Physics and it's just irritating to see people so confident in their ignorance. I recommend the book "Atomic Accidents"[2] as an excellent book on the dangers of nuclear power and nuclear power plant engineering in general. [1] https://fullfact.org/environment/scotland-renewable-energy/ https://fullfact.org/environment/scotland-renewable-energy/ [2] https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801 https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-...

caoilte 5y ago
Yeah. We need a better transmission grid before we can go to 100% renewables (balancing out Scottish wind with Spanish solar). But a better transmission grid is miles cheaper than nuclear, so it's still a no brainer.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Citation? In particular, small modular reactors are estimated to produce energy at a cost which rivals natural gas (but we can’t know for sure because anti-nuclear folks have prevented us from seriously testing it) which is almost certainly less than the cost of solar/wind and tens of thousands of km of massive copper cables.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    > small modular reactors are estimated to produce energy at a cost which rivals natural gas You'd be foolish to believe those projections from salesmen. NuScale's attempt at new reactors has already doubled in cost.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      So let’s get our thumb off the scales and allow them to build their technology so we can find out it’s true price? It’s equally foolish to assume that the prices won’t fall over time as we optimize.
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        So we have high operational costs but a lower capital cost for SMRs since we lose the size advantage of regular reactors. We then hope that these higher operational costs are offset due to the scale advantages of building many reactors. That's gonna require some huge cost savings?
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        You're making a lot of assumptions, including that the only difference between SMRs and older generation reactors is size. SMRs are also much simpler, with the express purpose of reducing operational costs. Maybe the operational costs would be higher, but we aren't going to know that without more robust analysis or--heaven forbid--trying out SMRs.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        They will be a bigger part of the costs compared to current reactors. Which is normal because employment costs are high. It's a popular choice now because all the latest reactors in the west have huge budget overruns.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        What do you mean by "thumb off the scales"? Elimination of nuclear regulation? I'm sure that would be politically sane. /s
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        If you were here in good faith, you would know that regulation isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
  - caoilte 5y ago
    This is for America, I don't have anything to hand for Europe https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/study-transmission-is-the-key-to-a-low-cost-decarbonized-u.s-grid https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/study-transmiss... Also, this is with technology we have right now that we know works. The problem with SMRs is they have always been 5-10 years away from being ready. We have to plan based on what we know now, not make pipe dreams based on technology we would like to have and which may never pan out.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      > We have to plan based on what we know now, not make pipe dreams based on technology we would like to have and which may never pan out. Same deal with solving for reliability with renewables. We should invest in solving both problems. Moreover, I suspect that "always 5-10 years away from being ready" has a lot more to do with regulators than feasibility.
    - StillBored 5y ago
      The us navy has been building SMRs for decades. Their reactors don't need to generally be refueled either since they use higher grade fuels and burn them in place for 30+ years. So, there are differences but mostly these aren't cutting edge designs, they are 50 year old concepts that have been studied and understood to death. Yes there are differences, but the fact that the NRC can't certify a reactor class that the navy builds (without interference from the NRC) is itself a problem.
      - Gwypaas 5y ago
        > The us navy has been building SMRs for decades. Their reactors don't need to generally be refueled either since they use higher grade fuels and burn them in place for 30+ years. So, there are differences but mostly these aren't cutting edge designs, they are 50 year old concepts that have been studied and understood to death. I have a hard time seeing nuclear weapons grade fissile materials spread around in every SMR in every town around the world as a feasible solution.
        5y ago
  - rekoil 5y ago
    Plus, you lose lots in transmission over such distances.
  - StillBored 5y ago
    Exactly, the price of nukes are roughly 100% regulation at this point. nuscale spent $500M+ just pushing paperwork at the NRC in the US and still haven't built one. It wouldn't surprise me if the NRC required global asteroid strike mitigations, just in case. The fact that not a single NRC approved design has successfully been built, should tell you that they exist to drive the costs so high has to be economically unfeasible. Apparently, South Korea though has kept the costs down to 1980's levels. A buddy of mine's joke is that the cheapest way to get new nuke plants in the US is to build a huge naval fleet and park them in ports.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
If we're choosing power sources based on the amount of lies told about them, then I'm afraid renewables win on that metric as well. They invented a conspiracy theory that the entire planet's scientific community was trying to destroy the economy for secret marxism reasons for goodness sake. You'd need to find someone who thinks Godzilla is a documentary to equal that level of nonsense.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  No one is making those arguments here so why bring them up? Unlike nuclear, that misinformation isn’t suppressing investment.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Because the person he was responding to was using anti-nuclear bad arguments as a reason for using nuclear. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Misinformation isn't suppressing nuclear investment, the all too real cost of nuclear is.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      I repeat: bad arguments aren’t a problem for renewables as with nuclear.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        I reject your claim that bad arguments are hurting nuclear. Nuclear is in trouble because of devastating correct economic arguments.
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Nonsense. If it weren't for FUD campaigns, nuclear energy regulations could be more lax (there's a huge chasm between the safety of nuclear and fossil fuels and no one had a problem with fossil fuel deaths for most of the last half century) and investment could continue in finding more economical designs. Note that various Asian countries are able to build and operate even older nuclear plants economically.
ch4s3 5y ago
I might note for readers of you book recommendation that despite the title, James A. Mahaffey the author also wrote a pro nuclear book and was a contributor to Power to Save the World[1]. He's definitely in the pro-nuclear camp, and is an expert on nuclear control systems, having introduced digital/computer controls to the industry. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307385876 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/03...

caoilte 5y ago

Yeah. We need a better transmission grid before we can go to 100% renewables (balancing out Scottish wind with Spanish solar). But a better transmission grid is miles cheaper than nuclear, so it's still a no brainer.

throwaway894345 5y ago
Citation? In particular, small modular reactors are estimated to produce energy at a cost which rivals natural gas (but we can’t know for sure because anti-nuclear folks have prevented us from seriously testing it) which is almost certainly less than the cost of solar/wind and tens of thousands of km of massive copper cables.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  > small modular reactors are estimated to produce energy at a cost which rivals natural gas You'd be foolish to believe those projections from salesmen. NuScale's attempt at new reactors has already doubled in cost.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    So let’s get our thumb off the scales and allow them to build their technology so we can find out it’s true price? It’s equally foolish to assume that the prices won’t fall over time as we optimize.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      So we have high operational costs but a lower capital cost for SMRs since we lose the size advantage of regular reactors. We then hope that these higher operational costs are offset due to the scale advantages of building many reactors. That's gonna require some huge cost savings?
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        You're making a lot of assumptions, including that the only difference between SMRs and older generation reactors is size. SMRs are also much simpler, with the express purpose of reducing operational costs. Maybe the operational costs would be higher, but we aren't going to know that without more robust analysis or--heaven forbid--trying out SMRs.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        They will be a bigger part of the costs compared to current reactors. Which is normal because employment costs are high. It's a popular choice now because all the latest reactors in the west have huge budget overruns.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      What do you mean by "thumb off the scales"? Elimination of nuclear regulation? I'm sure that would be politically sane. /s
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        If you were here in good faith, you would know that regulation isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.
- caoilte 5y ago
  This is for America, I don't have anything to hand for Europe https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/study-transmission-is-the-key-to-a-low-cost-decarbonized-u.s-grid https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/study-transmiss... Also, this is with technology we have right now that we know works. The problem with SMRs is they have always been 5-10 years away from being ready. We have to plan based on what we know now, not make pipe dreams based on technology we would like to have and which may never pan out.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    > We have to plan based on what we know now, not make pipe dreams based on technology we would like to have and which may never pan out. Same deal with solving for reliability with renewables. We should invest in solving both problems. Moreover, I suspect that "always 5-10 years away from being ready" has a lot more to do with regulators than feasibility.
  - StillBored 5y ago
    The us navy has been building SMRs for decades. Their reactors don't need to generally be refueled either since they use higher grade fuels and burn them in place for 30+ years. So, there are differences but mostly these aren't cutting edge designs, they are 50 year old concepts that have been studied and understood to death. Yes there are differences, but the fact that the NRC can't certify a reactor class that the navy builds (without interference from the NRC) is itself a problem.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      > The us navy has been building SMRs for decades. Their reactors don't need to generally be refueled either since they use higher grade fuels and burn them in place for 30+ years. So, there are differences but mostly these aren't cutting edge designs, they are 50 year old concepts that have been studied and understood to death. I have a hard time seeing nuclear weapons grade fissile materials spread around in every SMR in every town around the world as a feasible solution.
      - 5y ago
- rekoil 5y ago
  Plus, you lose lots in transmission over such distances.
- StillBored 5y ago
  Exactly, the price of nukes are roughly 100% regulation at this point. nuscale spent $500M+ just pushing paperwork at the NRC in the US and still haven't built one. It wouldn't surprise me if the NRC required global asteroid strike mitigations, just in case. The fact that not a single NRC approved design has successfully been built, should tell you that they exist to drive the costs so high has to be economically unfeasible. Apparently, South Korea though has kept the costs down to 1980's levels. A buddy of mine's joke is that the cheapest way to get new nuke plants in the US is to build a huge naval fleet and park them in ports.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

If we're choosing power sources based on the amount of lies told about them, then I'm afraid renewables win on that metric as well. They invented a conspiracy theory that the entire planet's scientific community was trying to destroy the economy for secret marxism reasons for goodness sake. You'd need to find someone who thinks Godzilla is a documentary to equal that level of nonsense.

throwaway894345 5y ago
No one is making those arguments here so why bring them up? Unlike nuclear, that misinformation isn’t suppressing investment.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Because the person he was responding to was using anti-nuclear bad arguments as a reason for using nuclear. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Misinformation isn't suppressing nuclear investment, the all too real cost of nuclear is.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    I repeat: bad arguments aren’t a problem for renewables as with nuclear.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      I reject your claim that bad arguments are hurting nuclear. Nuclear is in trouble because of devastating correct economic arguments.
      - throwaway894345 5y ago
        Nonsense. If it weren't for FUD campaigns, nuclear energy regulations could be more lax (there's a huge chasm between the safety of nuclear and fossil fuels and no one had a problem with fossil fuel deaths for most of the last half century) and investment could continue in finding more economical designs. Note that various Asian countries are able to build and operate even older nuclear plants economically.

ch4s3 5y ago

I might note for readers of you book recommendation that despite the title, James A. Mahaffey the author also wrote a pro nuclear book and was a contributor to Power to Save the World[1]. He's definitely in the pro-nuclear camp, and is an expert on nuclear control systems, having introduced digital/computer controls to the industry. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/0307385876 https://www.amazon.com/Power-Save-World-Nuclear-Energy/dp/03...