4 ms·
> which could be deployed in the Prairie province by the 2030s and in Ontario by 2028. Note the "could be". Can the myth of cheap, safe and quick to deploy fi
by nl 4y ago
> which could be deployed in the Prairie province by the 2030s and in Ontario by 2028.
Note the "could be".
Can the myth of cheap, safe and quick to deploy fission energy please die?
It's not cheap, for good reasons[1]:
> Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.
> The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.
It's not safe:
> US nuclear regulators greatly underestimate potential for nuclear disaster, researchers say[2]
> Now I was serving on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [snip] In 2009, President Barack Obama named me the agency’s chairman. [snip]
> Afterward, the falling cost of renewable power changed the calculus. Despite working in the industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power’s benefits are no longer enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants. I became so convinced that, years after departing office, I’ve now made alternative energy development my new career, leaving nuclear power behind. The current and potential costs — in lives and dollars — are just too high. [3]
It's always slow to deploy[4]:
> Finland's long-delayed Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor connected to the power grid for the first time on Saturday, the plant's operator said, 12 years after its planned launch. Located on Finland's west coast, Olkiluoto-3 is the country's first new nuclear plant in over four decades and Europe's first in almost 15 years.
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118 https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
[2] https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-potential-disaster.html https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nuclear-power-industry-now-i-think-it-should-be-banned/2019/05/16/a3b8be52-71db-11e9-9eb4-0828f5389013_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl...
[4] https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-launches/a-61108015 https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-la...
- towaway15463 4y agoAnti-nuke sentiment is the reason we are facing global warming right now. Just stop it.
- zackees 4y ago
- more_corn 4y agoNo. Centuries long burning of fossil fuels is why we’re facing climate change.
- nl 4y agoThis is untrue. 1) Burning fossil fuels is why we are facing global warming right now. 2) Anti-nuclear sentiment is why we aren't living in a nuclear waste right now. Even nuclear advocate's argument that "nuclear plants are much safer now and the accidents that happened at 3 Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima are impossible now" implies that anti-nuclear sentiment was correct in the 1960's, 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000s at the very least!
- acidburnNSA 4y agoGen II 1970s era nuclear reactors are still among the safest forms of energy known to humanity. Anti-nuclear sentiment has only prolonged the reign of particulate and carbon emitting fossil and biofuel. If Chernobyl itself was built today, without the post-accident modifications, and it ran 5 years and then exploded, it'd still be safer than a coal plant running normally. Fossil/biofuel particulate emissions killing ~8 million people per year is no joke. https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution
- nl 4y ago
- throwaway894345 4y agoThese things can all be true and yet it is still a good idea to include some nuclear in our energy portfolio for diversification. In particular, my understanding is that economic storage of renewable energy has not yet been solved, so it might be nice to get some nuclear going in case that endeavor doesn’t pan out as optimistically as hoped.
- nl 4y agoElsewhere on this thread someone posted a great 2019 research article that says: > If other sources meet demand 5% of the time, electricity costs fall and the energy capacity cost target rises to $150/kWh. Battery storage is already well under $150/kWh!
- thrown_22 4y agoAnd yet the more renewable a grid gets the less stable and more expensive it becomes. Funny how that works in reality instead of theory.
- nl 4y agoThis isn't true! Here are volume weight prices by time for Australia, which has been doing a transition: https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-volume-weighted-average-30-minute-prices-regions https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistic... They increase at less than the rate of inflation!
- thrown_22 4y agohttps://www.wsj.com/articles/a-warning-from-australias-power-crisis-green-energy-anthony-albanese-11655659465 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-warning-from-australias-power... Australia is the poster child of what not to do.
- nl 4y ago(I live in Australia) I'd take that headline with a grain of salt. A lack of investment in power generation because of unclear policy goals by the previous conservative government is the real issue - combined with another odd policy where long term gas supply export contracts meant it was cheaper to turn off gas plants than run them! Basically the previous government wanted someone to build a new coal fired power station(!) but no commercial company wanted to do it and no investors could be found (coal fired stations just cost too much now). The then Prime Minster is famous for bringing a lump of coal into parliament to show how much he loved coal[1]. It's worth noting that no blackouts occurred. Ironically, the state of South Australia also had a conservative government at the time but had a very pro-renewables policy (this is where the first Tesla big battery was) which took power prices from the highest in mainland Australia in 2018 to the lowest wholesale prices[2] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5bOaPkZpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5bOaPkZpc [2] https://reneweconomy.com.au/sa-renewables-surge-bringing-down-energy-prices-but-consumers-miss-out/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/sa-renewables-surge-bringing-dow...
- ceeplusplus 4y agoThe cost of storage must be factored into the cost of renewables, else it's not really a fair comparison. How much does it cost to build out 10 hours of storage @ 50% of day time generation wattage?
- nl 4y agoRenewables, with storage included are cost competitive with coal now. Utility scale wind = $26-$50/MWh + wholesale 100MWh storage ($55-$97) = $81-$147 Coal = $65-$152/MWh Nuclear: $131-$204/MWh These don't include pump-hydro which is a widely used and very cheap storage mechanism. It's much cheaper and better to overbuild renewables and put a few cheap gas peaker plants around as backup. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- credit_guy 4y agoStorage from day to night, not from summer to winter. The only solution for seasonal storage is hydrogen, and we are far, far from having any meaningful production of green hydrogen.
- nl 4y agoWhy would you store from summer to winter? Wind works pretty well in both seasons (depending on geography but the solution there is better transmission!)
- thrown_22 4y agoI love how nuclear is too expensive because it costs billions, but long range power lines, which also costs billions, are somehow a better waste of money.