4 ms·

Predicting future cost is really, really hard. Future cannot really be extrapolated from the current state of things. Until 2022, a lot of Europeans counted on

Predicting future cost is really, really hard. Future cannot really be extrapolated from the current state of things. Until 2022, a lot of Europeans counted on cheap Russian gas. If any kind of cold war breaks out with China, will solar panels be as available as they are today? Ceteris paribus, I would always keep at least some energy generating capability "at home", without the need to rely on potentially hostile powers or unstable regions. Even if it looked uneconomical at the very moment.

photochemsyn 4y ago
What do you think about the reliability of the global supply chain for uranium ore and fuel rod production? Canada has some high-grade ore but the United States and Europe don't seem to have much at all.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  Canada is fine with me. Finer than China. You can also stockpile rods easier than, say, gas. They don't take up as much space, given how energy dense they are. Having a three year strategic reserve is thinkable, not so much with other means of electricity production.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    The strategic reserve of sunlight and wind isn't susceptible to disruption due to war or economic collapse. It does take some work to collect that energy, i.e. a domestic PV and turbine and battery manufacturing capacity, but these are not consumables like oil, gas, coal or uranium - they're durable goods that should last for years to decades, and which can be recycled.
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      Manufacturing of PVs and batteries on a large enough scale (and that means much larger, at least volume- and weight-wise, than a fleet of SMRs) needs enormous amounts of minerals that are produced in either unstable or potentially hostile regions. The sheer energy density of uranium cannot really be downplayed here.
      - Retric 4y ago
        PV’s require minimal rare materials because the part that makes power is only ~1/5000th of a meter thick. It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power. The casing on the other hand can be made from an extremely wide range of materials. And of course long term you can recycle PV panels because they arn’t consuming the material.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        > It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power. Well, one cubic meter of uranium is ~19000 kg, so not sure what your point was.
        Retric 4y ago
        The point was Silicon isn't rare, it’s 28% of earths crust. If ~99.5% of the 1 cubic meter is silicon then, the rare bits assuming uranium density are ~95kg which is less than 240kg of uranium.
        natmaka 4y ago
        There is a gorilla in this room: the more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Known reserves or uranium may provide for the current reactor fleet at best for the upcoming 200 years. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycle_energy_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_nuclear_energy_A_review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
        vfclists 4y ago
Retric 4y ago
“Will solar panels be as available as they are today” Already installed solar obviously has zero dependency on China. In the steady state you need to replace around 3% per year to keep up with panel degradation, but a dependable solar grid has significant excess production so you have wiggle room to build up domestic manufacturing. And you can ramp up alternatives like wind. Nuclear has more significant systemic risks, which are less obvious. Over half of Frances’s Nuclear powerplants are currently offline for deferred maintenance. If they where nearly as dependent on Nuclear as often reported they would be having real trouble right now.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > Already installed solar obviously has zero dependency on China > Over half of Frances’s Nuclear powerplants are currently offline for deferred maintenance There is more. Nuclear power requires continual availability of skilled technicians and engineers, replacement parts that need advanced manufacturing, water and other material, access to road and infrastructure. And a stable socioeconomical and political and legal system. And military defense. For some developed countries it can already difficult to provide all these things with 100% reliability. Today, before the bigger impact of climate change. And what about the remaining 50% of human population? Do you see South American, African and middle-eastern countries being able to run nuclear plants? And they do, what about plutonium and nuclear proliferation?
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    If Bulgaria and Ukraine can run their nuclear plants, why not Brazil or Argentina?
    - Retric 4y ago
      Ukraine has a poor history of running nuclear power plants. They recently had one suffer a large scale military attack and are of course managing the aftermath of Chernobyl.
      - 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago

What do you think about the reliability of the global supply chain for uranium ore and fuel rod production? Canada has some high-grade ore but the United States and Europe don't seem to have much at all.

inglor_cz 4y ago
Canada is fine with me. Finer than China. You can also stockpile rods easier than, say, gas. They don't take up as much space, given how energy dense they are. Having a three year strategic reserve is thinkable, not so much with other means of electricity production.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The strategic reserve of sunlight and wind isn't susceptible to disruption due to war or economic collapse. It does take some work to collect that energy, i.e. a domestic PV and turbine and battery manufacturing capacity, but these are not consumables like oil, gas, coal or uranium - they're durable goods that should last for years to decades, and which can be recycled.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    Manufacturing of PVs and batteries on a large enough scale (and that means much larger, at least volume- and weight-wise, than a fleet of SMRs) needs enormous amounts of minerals that are produced in either unstable or potentially hostile regions. The sheer energy density of uranium cannot really be downplayed here.
    - Retric 4y ago
      PV’s require minimal rare materials because the part that makes power is only ~1/5000th of a meter thick. It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power. The casing on the other hand can be made from an extremely wide range of materials. And of course long term you can recycle PV panels because they arn’t consuming the material.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        > It works out to around 80 gigawatt hours per cubic meter and most of that material is silicon. By comparison a nuclear powerplant goes through around 240 kg of uranium to generate that much power. Well, one cubic meter of uranium is ~19000 kg, so not sure what your point was.
        Retric 4y ago
        The point was Silicon isn't rare, it’s 28% of earths crust. If ~99.5% of the 1 cubic meter is silicon then, the rare bits assuming uranium density are ~95kg which is less than 240kg of uranium.
        natmaka 4y ago
        There is a gorilla in this room: the more we obtain uranium (prospecting, mining, milling...), the more we add to the associated carbon footprint. Known reserves or uranium may provide for the current reactor fleet at best for the upcoming 200 years. Therefore a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity will lead us to exploit mines at always lowering ore grades => more emissions. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2051332 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycle_energy_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_nuclear_energy_A_review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...
      - vfclists 4y ago

Retric 4y ago

“Will solar panels be as available as they are today” Already installed solar obviously has zero dependency on China. In the steady state you need to replace around 3% per year to keep up with panel degradation, but a dependable solar grid has significant excess production so you have wiggle room to build up domestic manufacturing. And you can ramp up alternatives like wind. Nuclear has more significant systemic risks, which are less obvious. Over half of Frances’s Nuclear powerplants are currently offline for deferred maintenance. If they where nearly as dependent on Nuclear as often reported they would be having real trouble right now.

goodpoint 4y ago
> Already installed solar obviously has zero dependency on China > Over half of Frances’s Nuclear powerplants are currently offline for deferred maintenance There is more. Nuclear power requires continual availability of skilled technicians and engineers, replacement parts that need advanced manufacturing, water and other material, access to road and infrastructure. And a stable socioeconomical and political and legal system. And military defense. For some developed countries it can already difficult to provide all these things with 100% reliability. Today, before the bigger impact of climate change. And what about the remaining 50% of human population? Do you see South American, African and middle-eastern countries being able to run nuclear plants? And they do, what about plutonium and nuclear proliferation?
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  If Bulgaria and Ukraine can run their nuclear plants, why not Brazil or Argentina?
  - Retric 4y ago
    Ukraine has a poor history of running nuclear power plants. They recently had one suffer a large scale military attack and are of course managing the aftermath of Chernobyl.
    - 4y ago