8 ms·

Oil refineries also take years to build and are built on site. The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to ge

Oil refineries also take years to build and are built on site. The difference is that oil goes onto open markets and it is thus possible for oil refiners to get a return on their investment. We don’t need innovation in nuclear. The nuclear technology we have today is already a miracle technology. Can’t speak to Europe but in the US the issue absolutely is regulation. The exact regulations vary by state, but energy grids are not open markets and the regulations universally disadvantage nuclear and benefit other sources. Safety focused regulations do impose a cost, but the primary issue is that we don’t let nuclear power operators turn a profit.

afterburner 4y ago
> We don’t need innovation in nuclear The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  The nuclear industry has had three quarters of a century to be innovative, with enormous public funds pumped into it only because of its defense applications - nuclear weaponry and naval powerplants. At a certain point you have to say "sorry guys, you had your try" and let the existing plants wind down. That's what's happening. Nuclear is being replaced by green generation at 6x the rate it's being lost.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dron57 4y ago
    Renewable energy is great, but sun and wind are intermittent. Grids cannot base themselves on renewable energy without some sort of impractical battery storage scheme or major advancements in creating renewable Green Hydrogen for fuel cells.
    - cycomanic 4y ago
      This argument has been debunked many times. A large enough grid can be based on wind and solar alone, this has been shown for the US in several studies. Storage however is advantageous because it enables to reduce the amount of overcapacity. The good thing is that the way the electricity market works, is that it provides direct economic incentives to develop storage or basing high electricity demand production industry on currently available electricity. I'm always amazed that many free market proponents who strongly support market solutions, are so in favour of pushing nuclear which by its nature is very monopolised reliant on subsidies, while good market solutions exist. And I say that as someone who is often sceptical of market solutions.
      - HyperSane 4y ago
      - tomp 4y ago
        Can you share some of these studies? I just don’t understand how you can power a grid at night with just wind and solar (no batteries). Even the US isn’t large enough that sun would always be shining somewhere.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        Think for a moment.
        cycomanic 4y ago
        Here is one from 2015 [1] (I recall some older and more recent ones, but can't find them right now). IIRC they rely on a number of strategies (not necessarily all in the same story) : 1. A much better interconnected frid 2. Overcapacity in both wind and solar, but particularly wind. 3. Operate e.g. heatpumps during times with lots of energy available to heat or cool coolant. 4. Adjust energy intensive industries to primarily work during times of oversupply. [1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE01283J#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE0...
- yellowapple 4y ago
  Nuclear is already more than competitive. The appearance otherwise is overwhelmingly artificial.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    When your argument depends on promoting falsehoods, one wonders why you bother.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      I, too, wonder why people uncritically parrot the fossil fuel industry's anti-nuclear talking points without even having the decency to be paid for it.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Yet, you make shit up on behalf of nukes, under exactly thet arrangement. Fossil fuels also cost too much.
addicted 4y ago
Oil is the incumbent with vast majorities of the costs already sunk. As a result it’s cheaper (there’s also massive geo political aspects where certain countries entirely depend on selling it so will try to make it work no matter what). That’s why the best thing that can happen for nuclear is a carbon tax/alternative carbon pricing system, that has sources like oil paying all their costs, including externalities they offload to everyone else.

afterburner 4y ago

> We don’t need innovation in nuclear The Nuclear industry will need that innovation, in order to remain even remotely competitive with the alternatives. It's not improving faster than those alternatives though.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
The nuclear industry has had three quarters of a century to be innovative, with enormous public funds pumped into it only because of its defense applications - nuclear weaponry and naval powerplants. At a certain point you have to say "sorry guys, you had your try" and let the existing plants wind down. That's what's happening. Nuclear is being replaced by green generation at 6x the rate it's being lost.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dron57 4y ago
  Renewable energy is great, but sun and wind are intermittent. Grids cannot base themselves on renewable energy without some sort of impractical battery storage scheme or major advancements in creating renewable Green Hydrogen for fuel cells.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    This argument has been debunked many times. A large enough grid can be based on wind and solar alone, this has been shown for the US in several studies. Storage however is advantageous because it enables to reduce the amount of overcapacity. The good thing is that the way the electricity market works, is that it provides direct economic incentives to develop storage or basing high electricity demand production industry on currently available electricity. I'm always amazed that many free market proponents who strongly support market solutions, are so in favour of pushing nuclear which by its nature is very monopolised reliant on subsidies, while good market solutions exist. And I say that as someone who is often sceptical of market solutions.
    - HyperSane 4y ago
    - tomp 4y ago
      Can you share some of these studies? I just don’t understand how you can power a grid at night with just wind and solar (no batteries). Even the US isn’t large enough that sun would always be shining somewhere.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Think for a moment.
      - cycomanic 4y ago
        Here is one from 2015 [1] (I recall some older and more recent ones, but can't find them right now). IIRC they rely on a number of strategies (not necessarily all in the same story) : 1. A much better interconnected frid 2. Overcapacity in both wind and solar, but particularly wind. 3. Operate e.g. heatpumps during times with lots of energy available to heat or cool coolant. 4. Adjust energy intensive industries to primarily work during times of oversupply. [1] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE01283J#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2015/EE/C5EE0...
yellowapple 4y ago
Nuclear is already more than competitive. The appearance otherwise is overwhelmingly artificial.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  When your argument depends on promoting falsehoods, one wonders why you bother.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    I, too, wonder why people uncritically parrot the fossil fuel industry's anti-nuclear talking points without even having the decency to be paid for it.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Yet, you make shit up on behalf of nukes, under exactly thet arrangement. Fossil fuels also cost too much.

addicted 4y ago

Oil is the incumbent with vast majorities of the costs already sunk. As a result it’s cheaper (there’s also massive geo political aspects where certain countries entirely depend on selling it so will try to make it work no matter what). That’s why the best thing that can happen for nuclear is a carbon tax/alternative carbon pricing system, that has sources like oil paying all their costs, including externalities they offload to everyone else.