4 ms·

You keep bringing up climate change, like the only alternative is coal. Do you really think that nuclear fission can be a key player in reducing emissions to ne

You keep bringing up climate change, like the only alternative is coal. Do you really think that nuclear fission can be a key player in reducing emissions to net zero? It seems far too expensive and slow to set up for something this urgent.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
Fossil + biofuel makes 80% of our energy today. Getting rid of that will require vast amounts of zero-carbon energy. Wind and solar need to be built out at breakneck speed if we want to be serious. Much faster than what we're doing now. So does nuclear fission. I assume you're only looking at the slow and expensive nuclear builds? China is looking to build 150 new reactors to meet its goals. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-03/china-is-planning-at-least-150-new-nuclear-reactors-video https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-03/china-is-pl... We also have ways of making nuclear reactors extremely quickly if we want to get really serious. In the 1970s we started building a facility in Jacksonville Fl capable of delivering 4 large LWRs per year in a shipyard-like factory. The reactors were to be floated off to their sites (the first of which were offshore). They installed the world's largest gantry crane at the facility. Sadly the oil shocks reduced the energy demand where their first customers were (New Jersey refineries) and the effort failed after they received a construction license from the nuclear regulatory commission. Building zero carbon power plant gigafactories like this can solve climate change, you betcha. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-01-26-offshore-power-systems.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-01-26-offshore-power-sys...
- sweezyjeezy 4y ago
  By expensive, I mean in $/kWh - yes we could build enough nuclear power plants to stop carbon emissions, but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead? I've heard this idea that we should "do everything", but I don't get that, why don't we do the best thing as well and as fast as we can?
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    > but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead? First of all, we are investing more in renewables right now than nuclear. Much much more. Second of all, your statement is true for LCOE, but LCOE is an inappropriate metric for systems costs. It does not include the cost of storage, additional transmission lines to reach thousands of distributed wind/solar sites, extra capacity to fill up the storage, the required smart grid tech, etc. Quoting just LCOE is becoming extremely problematic. Everyone does it, and it's very misleading. Details of why it's best to also invest in nuclear from a full systems perspective are published and peer reviewed here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006
    - joak 4y ago
      Exactly, if you build a coal power plant today, the LCOE is calculated assuming the facility will run, let's say, for 30 years at 80% capacity. But what happens if you have to stop your power plant in ten years because its (LCOE-estimated) cost is not competitive anymore? So based on an biased LCOE computation, you sold your coal-based kWh at a third of it's real cost. Bad for the investor, bad for the climate.
      - sweezyjeezy 4y ago
        Yeah but we shouldn't be comparing to coal - I already said this.
- 7952 4y ago
  Whatever source we use it needs to be built out at breakneck speed. It just seems that wind, solar, and batteries are more amenable to that than nuclear in a basic logistical sense. All of the ways people suggest to make nuclear faster and cheaper already exist in those fields.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

Fossil + biofuel makes 80% of our energy today. Getting rid of that will require vast amounts of zero-carbon energy. Wind and solar need to be built out at breakneck speed if we want to be serious. Much faster than what we're doing now. So does nuclear fission. I assume you're only looking at the slow and expensive nuclear builds? China is looking to build 150 new reactors to meet its goals. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-03/china-is-planning-at-least-150-new-nuclear-reactors-video https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-11-03/china-is-pl... We also have ways of making nuclear reactors extremely quickly if we want to get really serious. In the 1970s we started building a facility in Jacksonville Fl capable of delivering 4 large LWRs per year in a shipyard-like factory. The reactors were to be floated off to their sites (the first of which were offshore). They installed the world's largest gantry crane at the facility. Sadly the oil shocks reduced the energy demand where their first customers were (New Jersey refineries) and the effort failed after they received a construction license from the nuclear regulatory commission. Building zero carbon power plant gigafactories like this can solve climate change, you betcha. https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-01-26-offshore-power-systems.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-01-26-offshore-power-sys...

sweezyjeezy 4y ago
By expensive, I mean in $/kWh - yes we could build enough nuclear power plants to stop carbon emissions, but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead? I've heard this idea that we should "do everything", but I don't get that, why don't we do the best thing as well and as fast as we can?
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  > but if the cost of energy is multiple times greater than that of renewables, why not invest in those instead? First of all, we are investing more in renewables right now than nuclear. Much much more. Second of all, your statement is true for LCOE, but LCOE is an inappropriate metric for systems costs. It does not include the cost of storage, additional transmission lines to reach thousands of distributed wind/solar sites, extra capacity to fill up the storage, the required smart grid tech, etc. Quoting just LCOE is becoming extremely problematic. Everyone does it, and it's very misleading. Details of why it's best to also invest in nuclear from a full systems perspective are published and peer reviewed here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006
  - joak 4y ago
    Exactly, if you build a coal power plant today, the LCOE is calculated assuming the facility will run, let's say, for 30 years at 80% capacity. But what happens if you have to stop your power plant in ten years because its (LCOE-estimated) cost is not competitive anymore? So based on an biased LCOE computation, you sold your coal-based kWh at a third of it's real cost. Bad for the investor, bad for the climate.
    - sweezyjeezy 4y ago
      Yeah but we shouldn't be comparing to coal - I already said this.
7952 4y ago
Whatever source we use it needs to be built out at breakneck speed. It just seems that wind, solar, and batteries are more amenable to that than nuclear in a basic logistical sense. All of the ways people suggest to make nuclear faster and cheaper already exist in those fields.