4 ms·

Taking the least charitable interpretation of opposing policies while assuming the policy you advocate will lead to drastic cost-saving technology improvements.

Taking the least charitable interpretation of opposing policies while assuming the policy you advocate will lead to drastic cost-saving technology improvements. A true straw man classic. You could have saved a lot of text in your original post by saying something like “we need more nuclear than is currently planned to achieve climate goals sustainably”. A lot of HN (myself included!) would have agreed with you.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Talk about strawmen: Nobody said that nuclear technology didn't need to go through a lot of technological improvements - look at the difference between 1960s photovoltaics and modern ones. Every other technology in human history has improved significantly with investment. You can look at all of the studies about Wright's law: when Wright's law gets studied, it is found to apply to every product, resulting in 10-30% unit cost reductions as production doubles - the only question is how big the reduction is. Whether you are talking about vegetables, power plants, or microchips, production gets cheaper the more of them you produce. Batteries, by the way, are undergoing similar improvements. However, there are a lot more open questions in terms of the scalability of battery technology, and it is nowhere near the scale where nuclear is today. Also, if you agreed that nuclear power would have made energy cheap and plentiful, why did you argue that there was no way to keep energy cheap and plentiful without fossil fuels? Finally, I just noticed that you put some brackets in a quote of mine: "trillions in spending and limiting [fossil fuel] energy." I never said "fossil fuel energy." I said energy. Energy restrictions are about restrictions at point of demand irrespective of the technology that generates the energy. The "peaky" and unreliable nature of renewables requires this (until batteries are ready). When you want to argue with someone, don't try to put words in their mouth.
- helen___keller 4y ago
  I agree nuclear is needed for a sustainable energy mix due to reliability, not price. Your optimism on price seems unfounded. As you said, nuclear is the same age as PV. PV gets more interest now, but nuclear used to have WAY more interest. The world has had no shortage of multi billion dollar nuclear investments. Why would continued nuclear investment fare better price reductions than continued solar investments? If anything mega projects have evidence of getting more expensive over time (US at least) and nuclear afaik is always a mega project Regardless, even if you’re right, the point is that you can’t know that for sure yet to are so quick to talk of the revealed preferences of opposing policy, as if everyone took a look at free energy and said “nah I’d rather have blackouts”. When in reality everyone looked at how expensive nuclear was and didn’t share your excessive optimism on future price reductions > I never said "fossil fuel energy." I said energy. “Limit fossil fuel” I meant supply side restrictions on cheap non renewables which would outcompete expensive nuclear on one hand, or cover the gap from insufficient/peaky energy production via solar/wind (should we not pursue nuclear). I didn’t realize you were talking about demand side restrictions.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Talk about strawmen: Nobody said that nuclear technology didn't need to go through a lot of technological improvements - look at the difference between 1960s photovoltaics and modern ones. Every other technology in human history has improved significantly with investment. You can look at all of the studies about Wright's law: when Wright's law gets studied, it is found to apply to every product, resulting in 10-30% unit cost reductions as production doubles - the only question is how big the reduction is. Whether you are talking about vegetables, power plants, or microchips, production gets cheaper the more of them you produce. Batteries, by the way, are undergoing similar improvements. However, there are a lot more open questions in terms of the scalability of battery technology, and it is nowhere near the scale where nuclear is today. Also, if you agreed that nuclear power would have made energy cheap and plentiful, why did you argue that there was no way to keep energy cheap and plentiful without fossil fuels? Finally, I just noticed that you put some brackets in a quote of mine: "trillions in spending and limiting [fossil fuel] energy." I never said "fossil fuel energy." I said energy. Energy restrictions are about restrictions at point of demand irrespective of the technology that generates the energy. The "peaky" and unreliable nature of renewables requires this (until batteries are ready). When you want to argue with someone, don't try to put words in their mouth.

helen___keller 4y ago
I agree nuclear is needed for a sustainable energy mix due to reliability, not price. Your optimism on price seems unfounded. As you said, nuclear is the same age as PV. PV gets more interest now, but nuclear used to have WAY more interest. The world has had no shortage of multi billion dollar nuclear investments. Why would continued nuclear investment fare better price reductions than continued solar investments? If anything mega projects have evidence of getting more expensive over time (US at least) and nuclear afaik is always a mega project Regardless, even if you’re right, the point is that you can’t know that for sure yet to are so quick to talk of the revealed preferences of opposing policy, as if everyone took a look at free energy and said “nah I’d rather have blackouts”. When in reality everyone looked at how expensive nuclear was and didn’t share your excessive optimism on future price reductions > I never said "fossil fuel energy." I said energy. “Limit fossil fuel” I meant supply side restrictions on cheap non renewables which would outcompete expensive nuclear on one hand, or cover the gap from insufficient/peaky energy production via solar/wind (should we not pursue nuclear). I didn’t realize you were talking about demand side restrictions.