3 ms·

I was a major LFTR/MSR supporter. But the emerging economics of solar/wind prevent any non-subsidized nuclear from being viable. Look at the solar/wind curves

I was a major LFTR/MSR supporter. But the emerging economics of solar/wind prevent any non-subsidized nuclear from being viable. Look at the solar/wind curves for the last decade. Yes, it is unlikely solar and wind will continue such a breakneck pace of improvement, but it doesn't matter. The point is that almost everyone will agree that solar and wind have not reached peak technology and economies of scale, and certainly battery storage has not either with forthcoming sodium ion and other approaches. No existing nuclear design can compete. Natural gas turbine is being passed by unsubsidized wind/solar right now per LCOE charts. Other/new nuclear designs are (let's be honest) 10 years at a minimum before they come online. What price is being targeted by such a nuclear project? I believe these new designs should be researched (and liquid fuel thorium research should be allowed too) and so should fusion. I also believe that existing nuclear should probably be kept around for now for baseload and to keep the nuclear industry viable for the future. Hopefully in 10-20 years solar/wind will stabilize, and then modular MSR/Thorium reactors can have their day. I would love to be proven wrong, but essentially any nuclear plant has to look at the current wind/solar price, and target half of that (inflation adjusted) as a target competitive price. It's possible that won't be enough though.

panick21_ 5y ago
Maybe with lots of investment and buy in we can do that in the West. However for emerging economies like India, Indonesia and many others I still think reliable nuclear power close to population centers is a far better plan. The actual investment required to get a modern MSR style (doesn't have to be thorium) is not actually that much. I would at least like to see nuclear get an actual shot at it. But I agree that after nuclear getting the short straw for 40+ years solar/wind are finally getting to the point where they might be an option.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  If we cannot afford nukes, how can they? If we cannot make them reliable and safe, how can you expect them to? Foisting nukes off on poorer, badly governed countries does people living there no favors. Nukes are farther from viable than ever before. Subsidizing them has become indefensible.
  - NumberWangMan 5y ago
    Good questions. One of the founders of ThorCon wrote a book (link to review[1]) about why we can't afford nuclear power (among other things), and it's not really anything to do with the essential cost of building a plant, it's a lot of regulations that don't really make sense and don't make anyone safer. I don't want to over-simplify regulation into the common "more vs less" scale -- some regulations make sense and others don't and you have to consider each one individually, but I think Devanney makes a good argument that the nuclear regulatory environment in the USA is pretty non-sensical and has cause far more harm than good by pushing investment back onto fossil fuels. As for "if we cannot make them reliable and safe, how can you expect them to?" I think we can, and I think they can. There's a ton of detailed information about the ThorCon molten salt reactor designs and why they are safe, how they'd withstand e.g. a Fukushima-style event, etc. [1] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
    - imtringued 5y ago
      The easiest solution to getting rid of the crufty old regulations would be by shutting down all obsolete nuclear power plant designs and building new ones. Considering the financial cost of a single nuclear meltdown, upgrading your entire fleet is basically free. That upgrade will save you a trillion dollars in clean up costs.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        Then, not building them will save another $trillion.
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Emerging economies? You means ones that have crappy grids? Wind/Solar + battery is a dream power combination for the third world. No reliance on a substandard perpetually underinvested grid, corrupt companies, corrupt/oppressive central governments. Starlink as well should be a HUGE boon to the third world. Again, buy dish, plug it in, pay money, get internet. I can see remote third world villages with solar/wind/battery + starlinks + a couple 5g towers and BAM, that is a modern power and communications infrastructure that scales from 1 to 1000 people. Rooftop solar is a sneaky liberating technology from a government/politics standpoint, in the sense it empowers individuals (literally and figuaratively) without the government imposing corruption, and generally speaking has minimal/no impacts on your neighbors and surroundings. I know MSR / LFTR is designed to avoid weapons-grade isotope chains in its breeding so are somewhat proliferation safe, but it's still a breeder reactor, I'm sure smart nuclear physicists could figure out how to make plutonium in them.

panick21_ 5y ago

Maybe with lots of investment and buy in we can do that in the West. However for emerging economies like India, Indonesia and many others I still think reliable nuclear power close to population centers is a far better plan. The actual investment required to get a modern MSR style (doesn't have to be thorium) is not actually that much. I would at least like to see nuclear get an actual shot at it. But I agree that after nuclear getting the short straw for 40+ years solar/wind are finally getting to the point where they might be an option.

ncmncm 5y ago
If we cannot afford nukes, how can they? If we cannot make them reliable and safe, how can you expect them to? Foisting nukes off on poorer, badly governed countries does people living there no favors. Nukes are farther from viable than ever before. Subsidizing them has become indefensible.
- NumberWangMan 5y ago
  Good questions. One of the founders of ThorCon wrote a book (link to review[1]) about why we can't afford nuclear power (among other things), and it's not really anything to do with the essential cost of building a plant, it's a lot of regulations that don't really make sense and don't make anyone safer. I don't want to over-simplify regulation into the common "more vs less" scale -- some regulations make sense and others don't and you have to consider each one individually, but I think Devanney makes a good argument that the nuclear regulatory environment in the USA is pretty non-sensical and has cause far more harm than good by pushing investment back onto fossil fuels. As for "if we cannot make them reliable and safe, how can you expect them to?" I think we can, and I think they can. There's a ton of detailed information about the ThorCon molten salt reactor designs and why they are safe, how they'd withstand e.g. a Fukushima-style event, etc. [1] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop
  - imtringued 5y ago
    The easiest solution to getting rid of the crufty old regulations would be by shutting down all obsolete nuclear power plant designs and building new ones. Considering the financial cost of a single nuclear meltdown, upgrading your entire fleet is basically free. That upgrade will save you a trillion dollars in clean up costs.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Then, not building them will save another $trillion.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Emerging economies? You means ones that have crappy grids? Wind/Solar + battery is a dream power combination for the third world. No reliance on a substandard perpetually underinvested grid, corrupt companies, corrupt/oppressive central governments. Starlink as well should be a HUGE boon to the third world. Again, buy dish, plug it in, pay money, get internet. I can see remote third world villages with solar/wind/battery + starlinks + a couple 5g towers and BAM, that is a modern power and communications infrastructure that scales from 1 to 1000 people. Rooftop solar is a sneaky liberating technology from a government/politics standpoint, in the sense it empowers individuals (literally and figuaratively) without the government imposing corruption, and generally speaking has minimal/no impacts on your neighbors and surroundings. I know MSR / LFTR is designed to avoid weapons-grade isotope chains in its breeding so are somewhat proliferation safe, but it's still a breeder reactor, I'm sure smart nuclear physicists could figure out how to make plutonium in them.