5 ms·

"Fear of spicy rocks" is an odd way of saying "one of the highest costs per GW/hr and rising despite almost a century of enormously subsidized R&D, and oh by th

"Fear of spicy rocks" is an odd way of saying "one of the highest costs per GW/hr and rising despite almost a century of enormously subsidized R&D, and oh by the way, it's also a major pain in the ass to operate and decommission and there's also all this toxic waste....which catches on fire if you don't cool it for months/years first..." Wind turbines and solar are cheaper and getting cheaper every year and they don't have anywhere near the myriad of problems nuclear does. That's why we had 30GW of renewables deployed in 2021 in the US, while 5GW of nuclear shut down in the same time period. We're replacing nuclear power generation capacity six times faster than we're losing it, with wind and solar. Because it's cheaper and easier. Investors, industry, and governments consider "what is the way forward for generation?" solved and are focusing on energy storage and grid modernization. You know what nobody has said in the history of mankind? "Oh fuck, that crazy dictator is shooting his tanks at that wind farm! Will this cause a nation-scale disaster?" "Oh fuck, terrorists are trying to steal old solar panels!" "That country developing wind power generation will politically destabilize the entire region." "It's so sad that thirty years after that solar farm fire disaster, kids within hundreds of miles from it still have significantly higher cancer rates." "Oh fuck, that tsunami damaged that wind farm, we need to evacuate people from thousands of square kilometers of area around it and not allow fishing anywhere near it"* (By the way, more than ten years later, there is still a no-entry zone approximately half the size of Tokyo.)

deadbeeves 5y ago
My understanding is that both wind and solar can't just placed anywhere, while a nuclear reactor can. A nuclear reactor is also more efficient in terms of GW per surface area. >We're replacing nuclear power generation capacity six times faster than we're losing it That's a rather odd metric, don't you think? "We haven't added or removed a single reactor, and we added a wind turbine. We're adding infinitely-many wind turbines for every reactor we're losing!" >"Oh fuck, that crazy dictator is shooting his tanks at that wind farm! Will this cause a nation-scale disaster?" The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants. >"Oh fuck, terrorists are trying to steal old solar panels!" Oh, no. Now all they need to do is separate the uranium from the graphite in the fuel pellets and enrich it in centrifuges and figure out how to build nuclear bombs. >"It's so sad that thirty years after that solar farm fire disaster, kids within hundreds of miles from it still have significantly higher cancer rates." I really don't think that's true of Chernobyl. >"Oh fuck, that tsunami damaged that wind farm, we need to evacuate people from thousands of square kilometers of area around it and not allow fishing anywhere near it"* You need to evacuate because there was a tsunami and flooding. Look up how many people died as a result of the tsunami and as a result of the nuclear accident.
- cesarb 5y ago
  > My understanding is that both wind and solar can't just placed anywhere, while a nuclear reactor can. A nuclear reactor has the same placement restrictions as any other thermal power plant: it needs significant cooling, which usually means a nearby large body of water. Since wind and solar need almost no cooling, they can be placed in some locations where a nuclear power plant can't. There's also other restrictions due to size and safety which limit nuclear power plant placement even more.
- mixermachine 5y ago
  > The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants. Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer. I think they would have figured out a few years later how to rebuild everything. Chernobyl (>35 years ago) on the other side is still buzzing and the rebuilding of the sarcophagus is ongoing and will be for a long time
  - nwiswell 5y ago
    > Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer. Well except the millions of people with emotional scars because their relatives died and they were displaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
  - deadbeeves 5y ago
    Did you not see the predictions of what would have happened if the Three Gorges Dam had failed? A dam failing is utterly catastrophic. Chernobyl by comparison is small potatoes, even if no one had done anything. (Also, the comparison isn't 1-to-1, since Chernobyl wasn't attacked. I have no idea what the failure modes of modern reactors are when damaged by munitions.)
  - VintageCool 5y ago
    Estimated death toll from the Banqiao Dam failure ranges from 26,000 to 240,000.
andbberger 5y ago
wrong nuclear is actually the cheapest by a mile but is crippled by financing
- andbberger 5y ago
  just to back this statement up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... more than half the cost is financing and construction risk

deadbeeves 5y ago

My understanding is that both wind and solar can't just placed anywhere, while a nuclear reactor can. A nuclear reactor is also more efficient in terms of GW per surface area. >We're replacing nuclear power generation capacity six times faster than we're losing it That's a rather odd metric, don't you think? "We haven't added or removed a single reactor, and we added a wind turbine. We're adding infinitely-many wind turbines for every reactor we're losing!" >"Oh fuck, that crazy dictator is shooting his tanks at that wind farm! Will this cause a nation-scale disaster?" The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants. >"Oh fuck, terrorists are trying to steal old solar panels!" Oh, no. Now all they need to do is separate the uranium from the graphite in the fuel pellets and enrich it in centrifuges and figure out how to build nuclear bombs. >"It's so sad that thirty years after that solar farm fire disaster, kids within hundreds of miles from it still have significantly higher cancer rates." I really don't think that's true of Chernobyl. >"Oh fuck, that tsunami damaged that wind farm, we need to evacuate people from thousands of square kilometers of area around it and not allow fishing anywhere near it"* You need to evacuate because there was a tsunami and flooding. Look up how many people died as a result of the tsunami and as a result of the nuclear accident.

cesarb 5y ago
> My understanding is that both wind and solar can't just placed anywhere, while a nuclear reactor can. A nuclear reactor has the same placement restrictions as any other thermal power plant: it needs significant cooling, which usually means a nearby large body of water. Since wind and solar need almost no cooling, they can be placed in some locations where a nuclear power plant can't. There's also other restrictions due to size and safety which limit nuclear power plant placement even more.
mixermachine 5y ago
> The same can't be said for, say, hydroelectric dams. Those are arguably even more dangerous than nuclear plants. Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer. I think they would have figured out a few years later how to rebuild everything. Chernobyl (>35 years ago) on the other side is still buzzing and the rebuilding of the sarcophagus is ongoing and will be for a long time
- nwiswell 5y ago
  > Imagine a hydroelectric dam "Chernobyl". At least the mid to longterm consequences would be softer. Well except the millions of people with emotional scars because their relatives died and they were displaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
- deadbeeves 5y ago
  Did you not see the predictions of what would have happened if the Three Gorges Dam had failed? A dam failing is utterly catastrophic. Chernobyl by comparison is small potatoes, even if no one had done anything. (Also, the comparison isn't 1-to-1, since Chernobyl wasn't attacked. I have no idea what the failure modes of modern reactors are when damaged by munitions.)
- VintageCool 5y ago
  Estimated death toll from the Banqiao Dam failure ranges from 26,000 to 240,000.

andbberger 5y ago

wrong nuclear is actually the cheapest by a mile but is crippled by financing

andbberger 5y ago
just to back this statement up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station#Financing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... more than half the cost is financing and construction risk