5 ms·

35x of a small problem is not necessarily a big problem. You need to quantify that objection. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); the

35x of a small problem is not necessarily a big problem. You need to quantify that objection. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); the concern raised here is usually proliferation risk. Given a binary choice, I'd rather have to deal with some nuclear waste than climate change, and I don't even think that climate change is an existential risk for humanity (just likely to cause large and uneven/unjust levels of harm). I think it's misleading to throw out individual objections like this without considering the systemic trade-offs that we need to make. > the nuclear lobby were the ones that brought us the phrase "too cheap to meter" I think this kind of blame-throwing is unhelpful. I couldn't care less what marketing claims were made in the past. Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is the conversation I think we should be having. To address your object-level claim, as the OP describes in detail, one reason nuclear is more expensive now is the ever-increasing regulatory framework that has changed under the feet of in-progress projects. Maybe those regulations have resulted in a good ROI, but it's hard for me to buy that claim. Nuclear is now 10-100x safer than most other traditional/fossil forms of power generation[1], and it's excruciatingly expensive to buy that safety margin. These are tiny death rates caused by power generation. The problem here is that it's political suicide to say "I think we should reduce safety regulations to make nuclear power 10x more dangerous, because that will avert far more deaths from climate change". In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

zackees 4y ago
Post like this make me hopeful that rational minds will prevail and we get clean abundant nuclear energy. It’s becoming clear that the climate alarmism isn't about solutions or even a tax, but forcing us to purchase “carbon credits” from Saudi Arabia and other sovereign wealth funds ranked high in the ESG index.
- throw827474737 4y ago
  Posts like this make me just despair... we couldn't even scale up this to the world wide needs, but if we could the waste would be huge. Only thing that could get us out there and would only make sense is going renewables everywhere in Manhatten-like projects, but that won't happen because people argueing like this got us into this situation where there is allegedly only a binary choice between failed and failed..
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    > the waste would be huge Isn’t the opposite true? Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel source by a gigantic margin. The entire US stockpile of waste since the 50s is only 83,000 metric tonnes and could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards deep. If we could all stop clutching our pearls about scary radiation and just agree to store the spent fuel deep underground there’d be absolutely no danger from it. Add to that the fact you can recycle the fuel and get even more energy out of it.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Energy density has proven so totally meaningless as a proxy for cost that even mentioning it as a plus is disingenuous at best.
      - towaway15463 4y ago
        I’m talking about waste, not cost.
    - zackees 4y ago
      It's easier than this, the waste can be burned in the new generators. So building more nuclear would actually fix the nuclear waste problem.
- logifail 4y ago
  > ESG Is that the same ESG that Exxon is part of but Tesla isn't?
SiempreViernes 4y ago
> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is the conversation I think we should be having. Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? That doesn't seem very committed to the idea of discussing the current cost benefit trade-off.
- theptip 4y ago
  The technology might make a good cost/benefit trade-off, if we fixed the regulatory framework but not otherwise. Or it might already make a good trade-off in the current regulatory environment. I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here, though they do obviously affect each other. My point is that we need to look at both of these factors, rather than considering the regulatory framework as a given that is set in stone, definitely correct, and something we can't change. In this case it may be easier to change the regulatory environment than to come up with new dramatically-cheaper nuclear technology that complies with the restrictions of the current regulations (though that is happening too with modular reactors).
  - SiempreViernes 4y ago
    > I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here You're saying the safety standards regulation is not couple to the technology being used? Then what is it regulating if it's not the technology?
    - theptip 4y ago
      Holding the technology constant, you can change the safety requirements.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        There is absolutely no appetite for reducing safety standards for nukes, especially considering that renewables pose exactly zero threat, and also cost much less than even the most ... aspirational ... guesses for nukes even with relaxed standards.
bipson 4y ago
The whole problem with the whole argument is: It isn't a binary choice.
- theptip 4y ago
  I was using that phrasing to illustrate my ranking of preference between those two options, I wasn't claiming that we have a binary choice. To be clear, I am explicitly advocating for a proper cost/benefit analysis that keeps all options on the table, rather than getting caught up on single factors ("we can't do micro-nuclear because it produces more nuclear waste"). As I mentioned later in the post, a major push to renewables is another option (I also don't see these as mutually exclusive). I know that the most popular plan here is "push hard for renewables". I like that plan; I think a Green New Deal is an excellent idea. But empirically, how is that plan going? If that's your plan A, do you think it's going well enough to reject a plan B that you deem to be worse, but still dramatically better than climate change? I think the stakes are high enough that we should be hedging our bets.
- freemint 4y ago
  The number of plants you build is an integer valued choice though. This has profound implications.
throwaway23234 4y ago
> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA. Solar is now THAT cheap if you are willing to put the up-front investment instead of paying PGE $600 a month. And if you don't have the space - buy a solar panel on a business from that other company they are starting - it was on here a week or so ago.
- solardev 4y ago
  Solar is great at small scale, but at utility/grid scale, that means needing to ramp up storage too. The grid doesn't currently have much storage capacity (batteries, pumped hydro, phase shifting materials, etc.) to support current needs, much less future needs if we want to phase out fossil fuels. Getting the lithium and cobalt infrastructure up to scale takes time and has a lot of geopolitical considerations. It's not impossible but also far from trivial. It's not just a matter of throwing up more panels and turbines and calling it a day. Unless we can solve storage at scale, generation at night will continue to be an issue, and nuclear is the least climatically damaging way to do that in the interim.
  - megaman821 4y ago
    Isn't this the crux of the argument for investing more money into solar/wind/storage vs nuclear. The solar and wind stuff is already cheap enough, so its storage vs nuclear. Will nuclear get cheaper faster than grid-scale batteries? There is only so much capital that can be invested, and potential advancements in batteries are looking a lot more promising than advancements in nuclear. I think the lion's share of money should be going to renewables and batteries.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Batteries are the most expensive storage. They cost per kWh stored, while others cost mainly only per W inserted or extracted. Only a minuscule fraction of utility scale storage will ever be batteries, so even mentioning batteries only details discussion.
Octoth0rpe 4y ago
> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed Arguing that we should adopt smr reactors because their proportionally larger amount of waste can be burned by a much larger/more expensive reactor that we'd _also_ have to fund/build? One that would likely cost >10b and take 20 years to construct? That doesn't seem like a good response to the waste issues with SMRs.
- MisterMower 4y ago
  As they say, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Just because it takes a while to bring it online doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile investment.
  - hypertele-Xii 4y ago
    Actually that's exactly what it means. Investments are measured in Rate of Return on Investment - the time to break even. Because the sooner you get your money back, the sooner you can re-invest it.
logifail 4y ago
> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Given the progress (or lack of it) with the EPRs[0], I don't think "now" is something nuclear can claim to deliver on. If we'd started planning dozens of reactors a decade ago, perhaps - but we didn't. Nuclear simply isn't any kind of "quick fix", by a long stretch. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
natmaka 4y ago
> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); Doubt so, as after decades of often huge projects in many nations there is not a single industrial fast breeder reactor working satisfactorily. Can you name one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...

zackees 4y ago

Post like this make me hopeful that rational minds will prevail and we get clean abundant nuclear energy. It’s becoming clear that the climate alarmism isn't about solutions or even a tax, but forcing us to purchase “carbon credits” from Saudi Arabia and other sovereign wealth funds ranked high in the ESG index.

throw827474737 4y ago
Posts like this make me just despair... we couldn't even scale up this to the world wide needs, but if we could the waste would be huge. Only thing that could get us out there and would only make sense is going renewables everywhere in Manhatten-like projects, but that won't happen because people argueing like this got us into this situation where there is allegedly only a binary choice between failed and failed..
- towaway15463 4y ago
  > the waste would be huge Isn’t the opposite true? Nuclear fuel has the highest energy density of any fuel source by a gigantic margin. The entire US stockpile of waste since the 50s is only 83,000 metric tonnes and could fit on a single football field stacked less than 10 yards deep. If we could all stop clutching our pearls about scary radiation and just agree to store the spent fuel deep underground there’d be absolutely no danger from it. Add to that the fact you can recycle the fuel and get even more energy out of it.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Energy density has proven so totally meaningless as a proxy for cost that even mentioning it as a plus is disingenuous at best.
    - towaway15463 4y ago
      I’m talking about waste, not cost.
  - zackees 4y ago
    It's easier than this, the waste can be burned in the new generators. So building more nuclear would actually fix the nuclear waste problem.
logifail 4y ago
> ESG Is that the same ESG that Exxon is part of but Tesla isn't?

SiempreViernes 4y ago

> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Specifically, compared to the other options we actually have available to us now. That is the conversation I think we should be having. Then why are you making so many arguments about how we must find ways to make it cheaper? That doesn't seem very committed to the idea of discussing the current cost benefit trade-off.

theptip 4y ago
The technology might make a good cost/benefit trade-off, if we fixed the regulatory framework but not otherwise. Or it might already make a good trade-off in the current regulatory environment. I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here, though they do obviously affect each other. My point is that we need to look at both of these factors, rather than considering the regulatory framework as a given that is set in stone, definitely correct, and something we can't change. In this case it may be easier to change the regulatory environment than to come up with new dramatically-cheaper nuclear technology that complies with the restrictions of the current regulations (though that is happening too with modular reactors).
- SiempreViernes 4y ago
  > I don't see the technology and the regulatory framework as being tightly-coupled here You're saying the safety standards regulation is not couple to the technology being used? Then what is it regulating if it's not the technology?
  - theptip 4y ago
    Holding the technology constant, you can change the safety requirements.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There is absolutely no appetite for reducing safety standards for nukes, especially considering that renewables pose exactly zero threat, and also cost much less than even the most ... aspirational ... guesses for nukes even with relaxed standards.

bipson 4y ago

The whole problem with the whole argument is: It isn't a binary choice.

theptip 4y ago
I was using that phrasing to illustrate my ranking of preference between those two options, I wasn't claiming that we have a binary choice. To be clear, I am explicitly advocating for a proper cost/benefit analysis that keeps all options on the table, rather than getting caught up on single factors ("we can't do micro-nuclear because it produces more nuclear waste"). As I mentioned later in the post, a major push to renewables is another option (I also don't see these as mutually exclusive). I know that the most popular plan here is "push hard for renewables". I like that plan; I think a Green New Deal is an excellent idea. But empirically, how is that plan going? If that's your plan A, do you think it's going well enough to reject a plan B that you deem to be worse, but still dramatically better than climate change? I think the stakes are high enough that we should be hedging our bets.
freemint 4y ago
The number of plants you build is an integer valued choice though. This has profound implications.

throwaway23234 4y ago

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA. Solar is now THAT cheap if you are willing to put the up-front investment instead of paying PGE $600 a month. And if you don't have the space - buy a solar panel on a business from that other company they are starting - it was on here a week or so ago.

solardev 4y ago
Solar is great at small scale, but at utility/grid scale, that means needing to ramp up storage too. The grid doesn't currently have much storage capacity (batteries, pumped hydro, phase shifting materials, etc.) to support current needs, much less future needs if we want to phase out fossil fuels. Getting the lithium and cobalt infrastructure up to scale takes time and has a lot of geopolitical considerations. It's not impossible but also far from trivial. It's not just a matter of throwing up more panels and turbines and calling it a day. Unless we can solve storage at scale, generation at night will continue to be an issue, and nuclear is the least climatically damaging way to do that in the interim.
- megaman821 4y ago
  Isn't this the crux of the argument for investing more money into solar/wind/storage vs nuclear. The solar and wind stuff is already cheap enough, so its storage vs nuclear. Will nuclear get cheaper faster than grid-scale batteries? There is only so much capital that can be invested, and potential advancements in batteries are looking a lot more promising than advancements in nuclear. I think the lion's share of money should be going to renewables and batteries.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Batteries are the most expensive storage. They cost per kWh stored, while others cost mainly only per W inserted or extracted. Only a minuscule fraction of utility scale storage will ever be batteries, so even mentioning batteries only details discussion.

Octoth0rpe 4y ago

> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed Arguing that we should adopt smr reactors because their proportionally larger amount of waste can be burned by a much larger/more expensive reactor that we'd _also_ have to fund/build? One that would likely cost >10b and take 20 years to construct? That doesn't seem like a good response to the waste issues with SMRs.

MisterMower 4y ago
As they say, the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. Just because it takes a while to bring it online doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile investment.
- hypertele-Xii 4y ago
  Actually that's exactly what it means. Investments are measured in Rate of Return on Investment - the time to break even. Because the sooner you get your money back, the sooner you can re-invest it.

logifail 4y ago

> Does this technology make a good cost/benefit trade-off now, or not? Given the progress (or lack of it) with the EPRs[0], I don't think "now" is something nuclear can claim to deliver on. If we'd started planning dozens of reactors a decade ago, perhaps - but we didn't. Nuclear simply isn't any kind of "quick fix", by a long stretch. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

natmaka 4y ago

> Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); Doubt so, as after decades of often huge projects in many nations there is not a single industrial fast breeder reactor working satisfactorily. Can you name one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...