4 ms·

Thats an audacious claim without any sources. If you look at (the very few) recent nuclear projects in western countries, you will notice that a) they take ver

by jpdus 4y ago

Thats an audacious claim without any sources. If you look at (the very few) recent nuclear projects in western countries, you will notice that a) they take very long to build (longer than to bridge any gap from gas and coal and longer than we have due to global warming), b) they are way more expensive than (over-provisioned) solar/wind PLUS energy storage to make renewables "stable", even when not fully factoring in implied state-guarantees (nuclear is still uninsurable and thus dependent on heavy subsidies that are almost never accounted for by advocates + the problem of longterm storage has also never been solved and is not covered by most cost calculations) and c) the energy companies don't even have enough trained/experienced staff left to extend the life of the last 3 german nuclear power plants. Yeah, nuclear superficially sounds like a good solution, but I am always surprised that most proponents havbe never looked into the details. Just ask yourself why China, where "irrational" nuclear fear plays no role at all, never went full-on nuclear (~5% of chinese electricity comes from nuclear and even with all planned new projects it will be max 15% by 2050). The reason is they did the math....

epups 4y ago
> If you look at (the very few) recent nuclear projects in western countries, you will notice that a) they take very long to build (longer than to bridge any gap from gas and coal and longer than we have due to global warming), That's not always the case, and it's mostly due to regulations which we can revisit. There is a ton of regulatory overhead on nuclear that is based on nothing but fear. More importantly, we don't have any other option to substitute gas and coal in ANY timeframe if not with nuclear. > they are way more expensive than (over-provisioned) solar/wind PLUS energy storage to make renewables "stable", even when not fully factoring in implied state-guarantees (nuclear is still uninsurable and thus dependent on heavy subsidies that are almost never accounted for by advocates + the problem of longterm storage has also never been solved and is not covered by most cost calculations) Let's unpack this a little bit. Yes, there is no solution for long term storage, but it is also not a huge problem. Even if all our energy came from nuclear, we could safely store all waste produced from it in a very small space. Again, compare it to the alternatives: the waste from coal and gas is released in the atmosphere, causing thousands of direct deaths due to pollution, and potentially billions due to climate change. Now for the first part. Nuclear is not heavily subsidized at all - renewables have way more subsidies, and let's not even talk about coal and gas -, nor is there any issue getting it insured except cost. In fact this is a major factor in how costly it is, because nuclear providers usually have to contract private insurance [0]. > the energy companies don't even have enough trained/experienced staff left to extend the life of the last 3 german nuclear power plants. This is a German problem, not a global problem. And in the time it takes to get these plants running, we could easily train staff. Again, not an issue except cost. > Just ask yourself why China, where "irrational" nuclear fear plays no role at all, never went full-on nuclear (~5% of chinese electricity comes from nuclear and even with all planned new projects it will be max 15% by 2050). The reason is they did the math.... Yes, they did. Which is why in China 10 years ago nuclear energy was only 1% instead of 5%, and 10 years before that it was 0.1% [1]. And they plan to double it to 10% by 2035 [2]. In other words, China is the perfect example of my point, not yours. But let's address the elephant in the room. What is your proposed alternative to nuclear? [0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/265533/consumption-of-nuclear-energy-in-china/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265533/consumption-of-nu... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/051122-fewer-hurdles-for-nuclear-power-growth-in-china-compared-to-asian-peers-ratings https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...
- ehvatum 4y ago
- DisjointedHunt 4y ago
  China has already begun trialling the use of Accelerator Driven Systems as a Nuclear Waste incinerator and the science has been around for a while: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/accelerator-driven-nuclear-energy.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

by jpdus 4y ago

epups 4y ago

> If you look at (the very few) recent nuclear projects in western countries, you will notice that a) they take very long to build (longer than to bridge any gap from gas and coal and longer than we have due to global warming), That's not always the case, and it's mostly due to regulations which we can revisit. There is a ton of regulatory overhead on nuclear that is based on nothing but fear. More importantly, we don't have any other option to substitute gas and coal in ANY timeframe if not with nuclear. > they are way more expensive than (over-provisioned) solar/wind PLUS energy storage to make renewables "stable", even when not fully factoring in implied state-guarantees (nuclear is still uninsurable and thus dependent on heavy subsidies that are almost never accounted for by advocates + the problem of longterm storage has also never been solved and is not covered by most cost calculations) Let's unpack this a little bit. Yes, there is no solution for long term storage, but it is also not a huge problem. Even if all our energy came from nuclear, we could safely store all waste produced from it in a very small space. Again, compare it to the alternatives: the waste from coal and gas is released in the atmosphere, causing thousands of direct deaths due to pollution, and potentially billions due to climate change. Now for the first part. Nuclear is not heavily subsidized at all - renewables have way more subsidies, and let's not even talk about coal and gas -, nor is there any issue getting it insured except cost. In fact this is a major factor in how costly it is, because nuclear providers usually have to contract private insurance [0]. > the energy companies don't even have enough trained/experienced staff left to extend the life of the last 3 german nuclear power plants. This is a German problem, not a global problem. And in the time it takes to get these plants running, we could easily train staff. Again, not an issue except cost. > Just ask yourself why China, where "irrational" nuclear fear plays no role at all, never went full-on nuclear (~5% of chinese electricity comes from nuclear and even with all planned new projects it will be max 15% by 2050). The reason is they did the math.... Yes, they did. Which is why in China 10 years ago nuclear energy was only 1% instead of 5%, and 10 years before that it was 0.1% [1]. And they plan to double it to 10% by 2035 [2]. In other words, China is the perfect example of my point, not yours. But let's address the elephant in the room. What is your proposed alternative to nuclear? [0] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-sec... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/265533/consumption-of-nuclear-energy-in-china/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/265533/consumption-of-nu... [2] https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/051122-fewer-hurdles-for-nuclear-power-growth-in-china-compared-to-asian-peers-ratings https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...

ehvatum 4y ago
DisjointedHunt 4y ago
China has already begun trialling the use of Accelerator Driven Systems as a Nuclear Waste incinerator and the science has been around for a while: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/accelerator-driven-nuclear-energy.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...