7 ms·

I still haven't seen a canonical bit of (non lobbyist funded) ROI that shows that same dollar investment isn't better spent on alternate means (varies by nation

by zeruch 5y ago

I still haven't seen a canonical bit of (non lobbyist funded) ROI that shows that same dollar investment isn't better spent on alternate means (varies by nation of course but by and large some combo of renewables for most geos seems a better bet, and less of an environmental AND security risk).

parineum 5y ago
You may not have seen it but Rolls-Royce is a company looking to make money building these things. You can assume they have done this research.
- mateo1 5y ago
  Their reasearch: "If we lobby really hard, get someone's political career tied to the success of our project and sink enough public funds into this so backing out is no longer considered an option, we'll make tons of money. p=0.05 btw"
  - parineum 5y ago
    Why wouldn't you lobby to get public funds _and_ do something that can actually sell mass market?
    - scaramanga 5y ago
      Because one of those is difficult.
  - kitd 5y ago
    Their research includes producing the nuclear power plants on the UK's submarines btw: https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/submarines.aspx https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/su...
- zeruch 5y ago
  RR deciding to lobby in the UK for business where they have few competitors (versus in renewables where their competitive landscape is considerable and growing by the quarter) doesn't seem like an ROI I buy into, much as Phillip Morris' "scientific research" into the effects of smoking on lung cancer didn't seem altogether self-serving.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  I think these projects are less about making money directly. Mostly these projects are only profitable/feasible with the help of lots of government funding. I assume they have secured some of that. The reason that the British government is interested in subsidizing nuclear is that they want to maintain their nuclear capability and want to stay credible as a nuclear power. That, and the French are also investing. Either way, that makes it interesting for the likes of Rolls Royce to get involved. There's government money to be had. And maybe Rolls Royce stumbles on something useful; like a cost reduction that makes nuclear a bit less expensive. I wouldn't count on that happening quickly though or in any amounts that really matter.
whiddershins 5y ago
Almost all renewable calculations elide the storage cost.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  And that solar is the most expensive way of producing power per kWh and would go nowhere if not subsidized to the moon and back.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    Unsubsidized on-shore wind and solar is the by far cheapest sources of energy today. They are down at the marginal cost of existing, paid of, traditional power plants. That is where the current explosion in renewable growth is coming from. It is simply a more efficient use of capital to close down your existing nuclear plant and build new renewables instead. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - dpierce9 5y ago
    That just isn’t true. Solar is among the cheapest per watt to build [0] and produces very cheap electricity [1] even if you remove subsidies. It isn’t a perfect technology but that is beside the point. Further, every other technology for producing electricity has subsidies: wind (similar tax benes), nuclear (the gov acts as the insurer of last resort in a catastrophe, unpriced externality of waste heat), coal (unpriced externalities for carbon, soot, heavy metals, waste heat), natural gas (unpriced externalities for carbon, waste heat for combined cycle), hydro has all sorts of hard to price externalities and they are usually built with the help of the government (financing, dislocating people, rights of way, building new shipping lanes, etc). [0] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p... [1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
    - moffkalast 5y ago
baq 5y ago
dollar cost is not as important as the time it takes to get to first watt, since the only reasonable alternative to fission base load generators is fusion... if you can build these in 12 months instead of 12 years, you'll find yourself unable to meet demand.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Everyone keeps talking about fusion, am I out of the loop or something? It’s not a proven tech, why is it being brought up?
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    It's a meme technology. It's well-known for its well-known-ness.
Ericson2314 5y ago
Look, the end goal is "too cheap to meter", whether it is public transit or electricity generation. And that is not profitable. The goal is to make something smaller enough that one can make it enough times to make the production process more efficient. Then they export them to every fucking country and make money one off. And then no more global warming world peace or whatever.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Considering nuclear is by far the most expensive source of energy that seems like dream based on unicorns and fuzzy warm feelings. In reality, nuclear is as dead as coal due to the steam based thermodynamic cycle. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
  - isomel 5y ago
    Your link show the opposite of what you claim. According to the main graph. Nuclear generation is not more expensive than other sources. Also the costs at the output of the generator is one thing, but what counts is actually the cost of the useful power used. And renewables puts a lot of extra cost on the grid.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      You mean this graph? https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png The right side has one magical word in the title: "marginal". New built renewables have a lower cost than your paid off traditional plants. In other words, to get a more efficient capital allocation you would close your existing nuclear plant and build new renewables. That is where we are today. In the same fashion nuclear puts a lot of cost on the grid since you need to plan for the largest producer cutting out at any time. That can be phased out with renewables. Battery storage is also starting catch on due to lowered costs. For 2022 10 GW is planned to be added to the US grid. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518
Manuel_D 5y ago
Sure, there are other options. But they each have their downsides: * Natural gas supplemented by renewables like solar and wind is cheaper, but it's still emitting carbon (plus fostering dependency on natural gas exporters like Russia). * Hydroelectricity and geothermal are excellent carbon-free and controllable energy sources. But they are geographically dependent. If you don't have a river flowing through a dam-able valley, or access to a seismic fault line you're not going to be building any of these. * Renewables plus storage can hypothetically delivery cheaper power. But storage at anywhere near the required capacities remain hypothetical. The few solutions that do seem to deliver good storage costs are geographically limited, like hydroelectric reservoirs. Nuclear remains the only non-intermittent, geographically independent source of carbon-free energy.
- aunty_helen 5y ago
  Hydro isn't carbon free. It takes a lot of cement to build a hydro dam. Even earth damns need to have their central and powerhouse structures made of cement.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Hydro emits less carbon per unit of electricity than solar [1]. And drastically less than the renewables + natural gas mix that's used in practice to accommodate renewables' intermittency. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#/media/File:CO2_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IPCC.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
    - bene_legionary 5y ago
      Although it can be highly disruptive to the local environment. So can most power generation plants, but usually indirectly.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      In a 100% renewable economy, where is the carbon emission coming from in PV? PV doesn't make carbon atoms out of nothing. Also, that chart is ROOFTOP solar. Rooftop solar is not what would be used to power a renewable-powered society; it's more of a con to game current utility rate structures. Hydro will always have a problem with methane emissions.

by zeruch 5y ago

parineum 5y ago

You may not have seen it but Rolls-Royce is a company looking to make money building these things. You can assume they have done this research.

mateo1 5y ago
Their reasearch: "If we lobby really hard, get someone's political career tied to the success of our project and sink enough public funds into this so backing out is no longer considered an option, we'll make tons of money. p=0.05 btw"
- parineum 5y ago
  Why wouldn't you lobby to get public funds _and_ do something that can actually sell mass market?
  - scaramanga 5y ago
    Because one of those is difficult.
- kitd 5y ago
  Their research includes producing the nuclear power plants on the UK's submarines btw: https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/submarines.aspx https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/su...
zeruch 5y ago
RR deciding to lobby in the UK for business where they have few competitors (versus in renewables where their competitive landscape is considerable and growing by the quarter) doesn't seem like an ROI I buy into, much as Phillip Morris' "scientific research" into the effects of smoking on lung cancer didn't seem altogether self-serving.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
I think these projects are less about making money directly. Mostly these projects are only profitable/feasible with the help of lots of government funding. I assume they have secured some of that. The reason that the British government is interested in subsidizing nuclear is that they want to maintain their nuclear capability and want to stay credible as a nuclear power. That, and the French are also investing. Either way, that makes it interesting for the likes of Rolls Royce to get involved. There's government money to be had. And maybe Rolls Royce stumbles on something useful; like a cost reduction that makes nuclear a bit less expensive. I wouldn't count on that happening quickly though or in any amounts that really matter.

whiddershins 5y ago

Almost all renewable calculations elide the storage cost.

moffkalast 5y ago
And that solar is the most expensive way of producing power per kWh and would go nowhere if not subsidized to the moon and back.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Unsubsidized on-shore wind and solar is the by far cheapest sources of energy today. They are down at the marginal cost of existing, paid of, traditional power plants. That is where the current explosion in renewable growth is coming from. It is simply a more efficient use of capital to close down your existing nuclear plant and build new renewables instead. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- dpierce9 5y ago
  That just isn’t true. Solar is among the cheapest per watt to build [0] and produces very cheap electricity [1] even if you remove subsidies. It isn’t a perfect technology but that is beside the point. Further, every other technology for producing electricity has subsidies: wind (similar tax benes), nuclear (the gov acts as the insurer of last resort in a catastrophe, unpriced externality of waste heat), coal (unpriced externalities for carbon, soot, heavy metals, waste heat), natural gas (unpriced externalities for carbon, waste heat for combined cycle), hydro has all sorts of hard to price externalities and they are usually built with the help of the government (financing, dislocating people, rights of way, building new shipping lanes, etc). [0] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.p... [1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
  - moffkalast 5y ago

baq 5y ago

dollar cost is not as important as the time it takes to get to first watt, since the only reasonable alternative to fission base load generators is fusion... if you can build these in 12 months instead of 12 years, you'll find yourself unable to meet demand.

thehappypm 5y ago
Everyone keeps talking about fusion, am I out of the loop or something? It’s not a proven tech, why is it being brought up?
- pfdietz 5y ago
  It's a meme technology. It's well-known for its well-known-ness.

Ericson2314 5y ago

Look, the end goal is "too cheap to meter", whether it is public transit or electricity generation. And that is not profitable. The goal is to make something smaller enough that one can make it enough times to make the production process more efficient. Then they export them to every fucking country and make money one off. And then no more global warming world peace or whatever.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Considering nuclear is by far the most expensive source of energy that seems like dream based on unicorns and fuzzy warm feelings. In reality, nuclear is as dead as coal due to the steam based thermodynamic cycle. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- isomel 5y ago
  Your link show the opposite of what you claim. According to the main graph. Nuclear generation is not more expensive than other sources. Also the costs at the output of the generator is one thing, but what counts is actually the cost of the useful power used. And renewables puts a lot of extra cost on the grid.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    You mean this graph? https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png The right side has one magical word in the title: "marginal". New built renewables have a lower cost than your paid off traditional plants. In other words, to get a more efficient capital allocation you would close your existing nuclear plant and build new renewables. That is where we are today. In the same fashion nuclear puts a lot of cost on the grid since you need to plan for the largest producer cutting out at any time. That can be phased out with renewables. Battery storage is also starting catch on due to lowered costs. For 2022 10 GW is planned to be added to the US grid. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518

Manuel_D 5y ago

Sure, there are other options. But they each have their downsides: * Natural gas supplemented by renewables like solar and wind is cheaper, but it's still emitting carbon (plus fostering dependency on natural gas exporters like Russia). * Hydroelectricity and geothermal are excellent carbon-free and controllable energy sources. But they are geographically dependent. If you don't have a river flowing through a dam-able valley, or access to a seismic fault line you're not going to be building any of these. * Renewables plus storage can hypothetically delivery cheaper power. But storage at anywhere near the required capacities remain hypothetical. The few solutions that do seem to deliver good storage costs are geographically limited, like hydroelectric reservoirs. Nuclear remains the only non-intermittent, geographically independent source of carbon-free energy.

aunty_helen 5y ago
Hydro isn't carbon free. It takes a lot of cement to build a hydro dam. Even earth damns need to have their central and powerhouse structures made of cement.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Hydro emits less carbon per unit of electricity than solar [1]. And drastically less than the renewables + natural gas mix that's used in practice to accommodate renewables' intermittency. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#/media/File:CO2_Emissions_from_Electricity_Production_IPCC.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
  - bene_legionary 5y ago
    Although it can be highly disruptive to the local environment. So can most power generation plants, but usually indirectly.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    In a 100% renewable economy, where is the carbon emission coming from in PV? PV doesn't make carbon atoms out of nothing. Also, that chart is ROOFTOP solar. Rooftop solar is not what would be used to power a renewable-powered society; it's more of a con to game current utility rate structures. Hydro will always have a problem with methane emissions.