5 ms·

> (china is provably much more cost efficient at doing large projects than anyone else albeit at a high human cost) Tesla and SpaceX is proving that with the

> (china is provably much more cost efficient at doing large projects than anyone else albeit at a high human cost) Tesla and SpaceX is proving that with the right leadership, western countries can also do large projects. Anyway, I think we should let international corporations compete for such projects, kind of like ship construction or more remotely, the car industry. > Ending the day with half of that production in a battery nets you an LCOE around $50 and that is falling by 15%/year with little indication of slowing down. That is great, and I'm a huge believer in solar for many purposes in suitable climates. Where I live, though, we have about 4-6 hours of faint daylight in the middle of winter, when it's really cold. Also, unlike nuclear, no country has so far been able to demonstrate an electrical grid that is powered exclusively by renewables (and Europe has tried). So far, everyone who tried, ended up with a huge reliance on (mostly Russian) natural gas, while having prices quite a bit above $50/MWH LCOE (for the grid as a hole). Currently, consumer facing prices are above $500/MWH, and may reach $1000/MWH this winter. If some country wants to invest in a plan to make them independent of natural gas without nuclear, I wish them the best of luck, but in my opinion, nuclear is the proven path. Also, it's not like one cannot do both at the same time. > Wind is a similar story (although not dropping as precipitously) and moderately anti-correlated. Wind also has longer variance in supply. To some extent, making a grid the size of Australia may lower the variance, but at the cost of a grid that competes with nuclear in zero day investment costs while bringing its own set of political risks (especially in places where the grid needs to span many countries with different cultures). > spend it on a new system that is $3/MWh With all due respect, this is a fantasy number. When you're not including the storage and/or distribution needed to provide stable supply, this number means nothing. (Or rather, it's only relevant as long as only a small fraction of the power comes from such a source.) Actual costs (LCOE, including enough enough storage to provide stable supply) are much higher. Different estimates exist. Your $50/MWh is probably the lowest I've seen. Typically I see $100-$200/MWH when including moderate storage, and several times that (up to $1000/MWH) when including enough storage to last several days with very little wind. From my point of view, paying $30-$50/MWH for stable electricity production, with the lowest carbon emissions (construction emissions for concrete, etc, are about the same as the best renewables), low dependence on minerals that are in short supply (rare earths, etc) using proven technology is quite fair. Hopefully, renewables, thorium, fusion etc will continue to develop to a point where they become clearly superior to nuclear in terms of price. But if so, I see that as a potential upside. Building more nuclear provides a hedge against the risk that this will take a long time. > And then there's all the geopolitical problems going nuclear entails for the large portion of the world who aren't allowed to make their own fuel. It's not for every country, but unlike natural gas, there are enough deposits in stable democratic western countries to power all such countries. Also, there are alternatives sources for China and Russia to not worry too much about the risk either. India, being somewhat in-between these worlds would probably be able to source fuel from at least one. And unlike natural gas, transporting nuclear fuel is quite trivial, due to the energy density. Finally, it's not like we need to have 100% of one source of energy. Some should probably go mostly renewable (Australia, for example), due to climate. Some already have plenty of hydro, and some would benefit from having more (or much more) nuclear. Some might also need to go for fossil fuels, at least as backup. I'm thinking of smaller islands, for instance (like Hawaii). But it would be good if we could soon start to REDUCE the dependence on fossil fuels, instead of consuming more and more every year, globally.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
You appear to agree that solar and wind and batteries are the best options for most of the world even if your optimistic nuclear price point is reached. So it's not clear what you are arguing against? Isn't that the best way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels which are a global commodity?
- trashtester 4y ago
  Eventually, perhaps, but I see fully renewable as just slightly less sci fi than fusion or thorium. Instead, I'm seeing countries like Germany restart their dirty, old, lignite fueled power plants (due to lack of natural gas, another, slightly cleaner, fossil fuel), because "environmentalist" organizations have been fighting against nuclear for the last 40 years or more. Germany has TRIED to build up a lot of renewable capacity, but have hardly built up more than the electricity provided by the nuclear they shut down. What I want is for us to SHUT DOWN all fossil fuel plants ASAP, stop using natural gas for heating and oil based fuels for most transportation. This should and could have been started 40 years ago, if it were not for the scaremongers. I welcome all renewable initiatives that are able to prove they can deliver stable power at a competitive price, and wish them the best of luck. I do NOT welcome the Utopia-chasers that promote renewables as part of their virtue signaling, while either being unrealistic or deceitful about motives, costs, challenges around stability, etc (both before and after investments are made). And this is especially bad when they spread lies about the safety level of nuclear (either direct lies, or more likely when talking about "radiation" as something dangerous regardless of intensity). I do realize that such behavior exists in all camps, but I find it especially bad when so called "environmentalists" have promoted policies that have had the net effect of NOT being able to reduce emissions nearly as much as we could have, while still causing prices to increase and ALSO maximize our dependence on Putin and various Arab dictatorial kings and princes. And btw, while you seem to be charitable about nuclear, only arguing from a cost perspective, there are plenty of organizations out there that still place nuclear in the "dirty" camp alongside fossil fuels when arguing about strategies for the future. So, while I'm certainly supporting most initiatives that aim to improve renewable power production, I think we (and especially Europe) should invest in a relatively large number of new, reasonably priced nuclear plants, for instance based on recent Korean designs.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

You appear to agree that solar and wind and batteries are the best options for most of the world even if your optimistic nuclear price point is reached. So it's not clear what you are arguing against? Isn't that the best way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels which are a global commodity?

trashtester 4y ago
Eventually, perhaps, but I see fully renewable as just slightly less sci fi than fusion or thorium. Instead, I'm seeing countries like Germany restart their dirty, old, lignite fueled power plants (due to lack of natural gas, another, slightly cleaner, fossil fuel), because "environmentalist" organizations have been fighting against nuclear for the last 40 years or more. Germany has TRIED to build up a lot of renewable capacity, but have hardly built up more than the electricity provided by the nuclear they shut down. What I want is for us to SHUT DOWN all fossil fuel plants ASAP, stop using natural gas for heating and oil based fuels for most transportation. This should and could have been started 40 years ago, if it were not for the scaremongers. I welcome all renewable initiatives that are able to prove they can deliver stable power at a competitive price, and wish them the best of luck. I do NOT welcome the Utopia-chasers that promote renewables as part of their virtue signaling, while either being unrealistic or deceitful about motives, costs, challenges around stability, etc (both before and after investments are made). And this is especially bad when they spread lies about the safety level of nuclear (either direct lies, or more likely when talking about "radiation" as something dangerous regardless of intensity). I do realize that such behavior exists in all camps, but I find it especially bad when so called "environmentalists" have promoted policies that have had the net effect of NOT being able to reduce emissions nearly as much as we could have, while still causing prices to increase and ALSO maximize our dependence on Putin and various Arab dictatorial kings and princes. And btw, while you seem to be charitable about nuclear, only arguing from a cost perspective, there are plenty of organizations out there that still place nuclear in the "dirty" camp alongside fossil fuels when arguing about strategies for the future. So, while I'm certainly supporting most initiatives that aim to improve renewable power production, I think we (and especially Europe) should invest in a relatively large number of new, reasonably priced nuclear plants, for instance based on recent Korean designs.