3 ms·

>waste management Not a real problem. >cost Self-inflicted problem. >risk Not a real problem.

pydry 4y ago
>>risk >Not a real problem. Good. Lets kill the $200 million liability cap then. If it's not a real problem they should have no issue paying for their own insurance. Once the tech has plunged in price to solar/wind/pumped storage levels and the industry feels confident enough in its own safety that it doesnt need taxpayers to shoulder potential catastrophe costs we should absolutely build tons of nuclear power.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  200 million liability cap? Nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of $375 million dollars of insurance per reactor [1]. So I'm not sure where that figure of $200 million comes from. Nuclear is cheaper than solar, wind and pumped storage. There's a limited number of economically viable pumped storage sites. You essential need an alpine lake close to a freeway to build one economically. Otherwise you're talking about pouring massive amounts of concrete to build a big tub, which is an expensive project. The reality is that dams are the only effective means of energy storage. Lake Meade is one the biggest batteries in the world. Intermittent sources are viable for regions close to hydroelectric plants, but for everywhere else nuclear power is the only feasible route to decarbonization. 1. https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accidents https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accid...
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    "Minimum" meaning maximum. Taxpayers are obliged to pick up the difference. There are not, in fact, a limited number of pumped storage sites, and you do not, in fact, need any alpine lakes. Dikes are not commonly made of concrete. And, there are numerous other cheap alternative storage media, for places without hills. But first we need to build out enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. It would be stupid to pour capital into storage that cannot be charged, particularly as prices are falling so fast that building will be radically cheaper when we come to need it.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      > There are not, in fact, a limited number of pumped storage sites, and you do not, in fact, need any alpine lakes. Dikes are not commonly made of concrete. There are a limited number of economically viable pumped storage sites. You can find papers claiming an effectively limitless amount of hydroelectric storage. The problem is that most of these places either already use dams for most of their energy production and thus don't need to build any storage. Or, they are in extremely remote areas where construction is prohibitively expensive. There's huge hydroelectric potential in Tibet. But that's incredibly remote and prohibitively expensive to develop. > And, there are numerous other cheap alternative storage media, for places without hills. Such as?

>>risk >Not a real problem. Good. Lets kill the $200 million liability cap then. If it's not a real problem they should have no issue paying for their own insurance. Once the tech has plunged in price to solar/wind/pumped storage levels and the industry feels confident enough in its own safety that it doesnt need taxpayers to shoulder potential catastrophe costs we should absolutely build tons of nuclear power.

Manuel_D 4y ago
200 million liability cap? Nuclear plants are required to have a minimum of $375 million dollars of insurance per reactor [1]. So I'm not sure where that figure of $200 million comes from. Nuclear is cheaper than solar, wind and pumped storage. There's a limited number of economically viable pumped storage sites. You essential need an alpine lake close to a freeway to build one economically. Otherwise you're talking about pouring massive amounts of concrete to build a big tub, which is an expensive project. The reality is that dams are the only effective means of energy storage. Lake Meade is one the biggest batteries in the world. Intermittent sources are viable for regions close to hydroelectric plants, but for everywhere else nuclear power is the only feasible route to decarbonization. 1. https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accidents https://www.iii.org/article/insurance-coverage-nuclear-accid...
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Minimum" meaning maximum. Taxpayers are obliged to pick up the difference. There are not, in fact, a limited number of pumped storage sites, and you do not, in fact, need any alpine lakes. Dikes are not commonly made of concrete. And, there are numerous other cheap alternative storage media, for places without hills. But first we need to build out enough renewable generating capacity to charge it from. It would be stupid to pour capital into storage that cannot be charged, particularly as prices are falling so fast that building will be radically cheaper when we come to need it.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > There are not, in fact, a limited number of pumped storage sites, and you do not, in fact, need any alpine lakes. Dikes are not commonly made of concrete. There are a limited number of economically viable pumped storage sites. You can find papers claiming an effectively limitless amount of hydroelectric storage. The problem is that most of these places either already use dams for most of their energy production and thus don't need to build any storage. Or, they are in extremely remote areas where construction is prohibitively expensive. There's huge hydroelectric potential in Tibet. But that's incredibly remote and prohibitively expensive to develop. > And, there are numerous other cheap alternative storage media, for places without hills. Such as?