8 ms·

Each plant does not require custom designs for each specific site when the same design is built in series. This is big reason why nuclear plants built in the la

Each plant does not require custom designs for each specific site when the same design is built in series. This is big reason why nuclear plants built in the last few decades have been so expensive: they're usually the first one of their kind build in that country. That first build is when a lot of the design quirks are worked out, and construction teams gain experience. Furthermore, sub-components like steam-generators[1] and heat exchangers can't benefit from economies of scale. By comparison, when plants of the same design are built in series they're much cheaper. Nuclear plants that started construction in the late 1960s and early 1970s were some of the most effective clean energy investments, delivered at a cost of $1-2 billion per gigawatt. Check out the costs in the historical list and there's a large stretch of plants that were built at this price point [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

puchatek 5y ago
How can it be called "clean" when it produces toxic waste that requires its own infrastructure and expertise to be handled. I think you meant "co2-emission-free-while-operating"
- adrianN 5y ago
  Nothing humans do is "clean", so you always have to read the word in context. In the sixties the alternative would've been coal which in comparison is less clean.
  - VyperCard 5y ago
    It’s still euphemistic and you know it.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      I don't think so. What would be "clean" energy for you? Renewables also take considerable resources to build. I assume you weigh nuclear waste very heavily, but I don't believe it to be such a serious problem. There is not that much highly radioactive waste being produced. I prefer renewables over nuclear because I think that in the end they'll be cheaper while being okay for the environment. But I would be very easily convinced that nuclear energy has a smaller environmental footprint.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  The sum total of the waste produced by nuclear power generation in the US occupies a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. The "infrastructure" it requires is concrete cylinders that are perfectly safe to stand next to [2]. The amount of waste it produces is miniscule relative to the amount of power it produces. And most importantly, this waste is contained rather than released out into the atmosphere like greenhouse gases. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File:Nuclear_dry_storage.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File:N...
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Even manure from a pig farm requires infrastructure and expertise to be handled, thats how you get ocean dead zones where everything except jellyfish suffocates
- cesarb 5y ago
  > How can it be called "clean" when it produces toxic waste that requires its own infrastructure and expertise to be handled. That's always been a paradox with nuclear power. On one hand, of all electric power generation technologies, nuclear power has the most toxic waste; on the other hand, that toxic waste is completely contained under normal operation, so that looking from the outside, it's one of the cleanest. That's why in these discussions you always have people talking past each other: depending on how you look at it, nuclear power can be very clean or very dirty.
ncmncm 5y ago
Nukes are expensive just because they are expensive. Always have been, always will be. They probably could be made more cheaply than they have been. Making them cheap enough to be economically competitive will be very hard and and very uncertain of success. And, trying will take time we cannot afford, because you get no power out until it is all finished, and you burn coal until then. Renewables start producing and displacing coal almost instantly.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  1-2 billion per gigawatt is very economically competitive. And that's what nuclear has historically cost when it was built at scale in the US. A fair comparison against intermittent sources like wind and solar needs to include the costs of energy storage for the latter.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Why would you include integration costs for renewables but not nuclear? They face very similar challenges with very similar solutions. The demand curve is lumpy on a daily, weekly and yearly cycle. Nuclear is flat and predictable, renewables are (like demand) predictable to a reasonable degree but variable (weather and energy demand are linked too). Nuclear (and coals) difficulty meeting peaky demand is a big reason for pumped hydro to exist for decades. It is still the biggest source of energy storage we have. Why should renewables pay for storage built for nuclear?
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      No, they do not. The demand curve is mostly flat. Peaky demand is not nearly as large as problem as people make it out to be [1]. Furthermore, nuclear poet's output can be modulated by more aggressively cooling the reactor. 1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
      - ZeroGravitas 5y ago

puchatek 5y ago

How can it be called "clean" when it produces toxic waste that requires its own infrastructure and expertise to be handled. I think you meant "co2-emission-free-while-operating"

adrianN 5y ago
Nothing humans do is "clean", so you always have to read the word in context. In the sixties the alternative would've been coal which in comparison is less clean.
- VyperCard 5y ago
  It’s still euphemistic and you know it.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    I don't think so. What would be "clean" energy for you? Renewables also take considerable resources to build. I assume you weigh nuclear waste very heavily, but I don't believe it to be such a serious problem. There is not that much highly radioactive waste being produced. I prefer renewables over nuclear because I think that in the end they'll be cheaper while being okay for the environment. But I would be very easily convinced that nuclear energy has a smaller environmental footprint.
Manuel_D 5y ago
The sum total of the waste produced by nuclear power generation in the US occupies a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. The "infrastructure" it requires is concrete cylinders that are perfectly safe to stand next to [2]. The amount of waste it produces is miniscule relative to the amount of power it produces. And most importantly, this waste is contained rather than released out into the atmosphere like greenhouse gases. 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File:Nuclear_dry_storage.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#/media/File:N...
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Even manure from a pig farm requires infrastructure and expertise to be handled, thats how you get ocean dead zones where everything except jellyfish suffocates
cesarb 5y ago
> How can it be called "clean" when it produces toxic waste that requires its own infrastructure and expertise to be handled. That's always been a paradox with nuclear power. On one hand, of all electric power generation technologies, nuclear power has the most toxic waste; on the other hand, that toxic waste is completely contained under normal operation, so that looking from the outside, it's one of the cleanest. That's why in these discussions you always have people talking past each other: depending on how you look at it, nuclear power can be very clean or very dirty.

ncmncm 5y ago

Nukes are expensive just because they are expensive. Always have been, always will be. They probably could be made more cheaply than they have been. Making them cheap enough to be economically competitive will be very hard and and very uncertain of success. And, trying will take time we cannot afford, because you get no power out until it is all finished, and you burn coal until then. Renewables start producing and displacing coal almost instantly.

Manuel_D 5y ago
1-2 billion per gigawatt is very economically competitive. And that's what nuclear has historically cost when it was built at scale in the US. A fair comparison against intermittent sources like wind and solar needs to include the costs of energy storage for the latter.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Why would you include integration costs for renewables but not nuclear? They face very similar challenges with very similar solutions. The demand curve is lumpy on a daily, weekly and yearly cycle. Nuclear is flat and predictable, renewables are (like demand) predictable to a reasonable degree but variable (weather and energy demand are linked too). Nuclear (and coals) difficulty meeting peaky demand is a big reason for pumped hydro to exist for decades. It is still the biggest source of energy storage we have. Why should renewables pay for storage built for nuclear?
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    No, they do not. The demand curve is mostly flat. Peaky demand is not nearly as large as problem as people make it out to be [1]. Furthermore, nuclear poet's output can be modulated by more aggressively cooling the reactor. 1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago