6 ms·

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

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.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        I guess we just need omniscient philosopher-kings to tell us ahead of times which safety regulations were actually necessary. Is there R&D into crystal balls?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        If you can't make good faith arguments, maybe your position isn't very strong?
        pfdietz 5y ago
        I am asking you how one determines which regulations are actually necessary. Those of you making this "too much regulation" argument never seem to go into detail on that. Judging by every other industry that has ever existed, this is not a tractable problem -- one determines what regulations are necessary by failing and learning from the experience. With nuclear, how many meltdowns are you willing to tolerate to get this experience?
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Thank you, this comment seems constructive. > I am asking you how one determines which regulations are actually necessary. This is something that experts need to work out. > Those of you making this "too much regulation" argument never seem to go into detail on that. Our arguments don't require us to specify specific regulation to eliminate, it suffices to note that we tolerate tens of thousands of annual deaths due to fossil fuels and we tolerate virtually zero deaths due to nuclear. We can be sure that there are regulations which are onerous for relatively little safety gains, but to your point most of us aren't experts here and can't speak to specific regulations or how they work. > Judging by every other industry that has ever existed, this is not a tractable problem -- one determines what regulations are necessary by failing and learning from the experience. Not at all. The number of deaths we're willing to tolerate is a choice, largely one driven by lobbyists. For example, we tolerate tens of thousands of annual fossil fuel deaths, transportation deaths, etc. The only reason we tolerate so few nuclear deaths is because of FUD campaigns. > With nuclear, how many meltdowns are you willing to tolerate to get this experience? Well, we could look to our own past experience or the experience of other countries which had extensive nuclear experience and virtually zero meltdowns despite far less regulation.
- 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.

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.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        I guess we just need omniscient philosopher-kings to tell us ahead of times which safety regulations were actually necessary. Is there R&D into crystal balls?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        If you can't make good faith arguments, maybe your position isn't very strong?
        pfdietz 5y ago
        I am asking you how one determines which regulations are actually necessary. Those of you making this "too much regulation" argument never seem to go into detail on that. Judging by every other industry that has ever existed, this is not a tractable problem -- one determines what regulations are necessary by failing and learning from the experience. With nuclear, how many meltdowns are you willing to tolerate to get this experience?
        throwaway894345 5y ago
        Thank you, this comment seems constructive. > I am asking you how one determines which regulations are actually necessary. This is something that experts need to work out. > Those of you making this "too much regulation" argument never seem to go into detail on that. Our arguments don't require us to specify specific regulation to eliminate, it suffices to note that we tolerate tens of thousands of annual deaths due to fossil fuels and we tolerate virtually zero deaths due to nuclear. We can be sure that there are regulations which are onerous for relatively little safety gains, but to your point most of us aren't experts here and can't speak to specific regulations or how they work. > Judging by every other industry that has ever existed, this is not a tractable problem -- one determines what regulations are necessary by failing and learning from the experience. Not at all. The number of deaths we're willing to tolerate is a choice, largely one driven by lobbyists. For example, we tolerate tens of thousands of annual fossil fuel deaths, transportation deaths, etc. The only reason we tolerate so few nuclear deaths is because of FUD campaigns. > With nuclear, how many meltdowns are you willing to tolerate to get this experience? Well, we could look to our own past experience or the experience of other countries which had extensive nuclear experience and virtually zero meltdowns despite far less regulation.
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.