10 ms·
I like the fact that the Greens are finally considering nuclear. One other option is geothermal. Most areas of the United States can reach geothermal by drill
by rmason 4y ago
I like the fact that the Greens are finally considering nuclear. One other option is geothermal. Most areas of the United States can reach geothermal by drilling 300-800 feet down. Using traditional drilling techniques this is not economically feasible. But there's a company using MIT research to drill using what's called millimeter waves to blast through the rock. The company commercializing the MIT research is called https://www.quaise.energy/ https://www.quaise.energy/
Quaise Energy doesn't sell drilling equipment but instead they sell the end product of steam. They plan on locating next to say a coal plant and then feeding steam to the plants turbines. The company raised a $52 million dollar Series A this summer.
https://news.mit.edu/2022/quaise-energy-geothermal-0628 https://news.mit.edu/2022/quaise-energy-geothermal-0628
The only negative from this type of drilling is localized small earthquakes similar to those created from fracking. So there will be opponents, but nowhere near the number of nuclear critics. There should also be a much quicker (and cheaper) approval process than nuclear.
- chii 4y ago> I like the fact that the Greens are finally considering nuclear. it's more likely that the electorate is now finally capable of accepting nuclear. The greens are merely trying to get votes and attempt to make their policies match what their electorates would vote for. I think the previous fear about nuclear is mostly misinformed, and bad PR from high profile accidents isn't helping. Nuclear is fairly clean, cheap, and available. We really should consider it as a viable source for the long term future.
- mikeyouse 4y agoExcept it’s not remotely cheap. Guaranteeing rates on new build nuclear is like 6x more expensive than wind resources and at least 4x higher than say combined cycle natural gas. If the new reactor at Hinkley is ever completed, it’s going to cost over $0.15/kWh wholesale which is more than I’m paying retail at the moment.
- tcoff91 4y agoMan I’m paying 0.33 to $0.52 per kWh. I’d love to pay 0.15
- GoOnThenDoTell 4y agoI think my generator in santa clara charges something like 15c (flat) before distribution, which gets to 31c/41c/49cents depending on usage level. Nuclear seems like a normal price for the bay area
- zbrozek 4y agoThat sounds like PG&E pricing, not SVP pricing. Anybody on PG&E should have solar panels. Hang them off your balcony if you have to. The electricity rates are astronomical. http://zlnp.net/serve/pge_rates/pge-electric-rates.png http://zlnp.net/serve/pge_rates/pge-electric-rates.png
- hedora 4y agoAlso, demand California implement community net metering (allowing you to buy a percentage ownership of panels in a nearby parking lot, etc, and applying their generation to your power bill.)
- mikeyouse 4y agoIn honesty, I was being modest with my "under $0.15/KWh" -- it's actually fixed price at $0.114/KWh. So I can run my heat pump to cool my house, my heat pump to warm my pool, and my electric car charger at 1pm on July 4th and still pay $0.114. It's a really great deal from a well-run local power company in the Midwest US. There is a fair amount of coal in the mix still (about 1/3 of summer generating capacity) which is being phased out over the next few years so we'll see what happens to rates.
- JanSt 4y agoIn Germany we have massive wind and solar capacity (120GW) and phased out nuclear. Energy prices have constantly risen to above 35c/kwh and our dependeny on gas grew. At the moment it‘s above 55c/kwh for new contracts. We still have very dirty electricity because so much coal and gas have to be burned
- jeffbee 4y agoThe electorate does not support it. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-continue-to-express-mixed-views-about-nuclear-power/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/03/23/americans-c...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mpweiher 4y ago72% in the "encourage" or "neither" camp seems pretty accepting.
- ako 4y agoI doubt it that the entire elactorate is accepting nuclear, especially now that we see what is happening in Ukraine. It's pretty scary to see fighting and bombing happing at nuclear plants.
- ovi256 4y agoThe fighting and bombing is just as scary and deadly away from nuclear plants.
- goodpoint 4y agoNot at all. Nuclear plants make for excellent targets for warfare and terrorism. Nuclear power is highly centralized so one strike at transformers or pylons leaves millions without electricity.
- otikik 4y agoBut all major sources of energy share that same “one point of failure” problems. Solar plants and wind turbines also have transformers. Gas and oil have pipes, etc.
- throw827474737 4y agoIt needs a grid and storage we never built due to fossil and nuclear faith.. but if we would then decentralized renewables don't have that problem. The problem with nuclear is also not millions without power, but a strike that sets the nuclear plant without power (including backups), then it is quickly game over.
- ovi256 4y ago> a strike that sets the nuclear plant without power (including backups), then it is quickly game over Wdym ? All modern designs are safe to shut down even without power.
- goodpoint 4y ago
- pjc50 4y ago"Cheap" has never really delivered. When was the most recent nuclear plant built within its cost estimate? > misinformed, and bad PR from high profile accidents isn't helping I'd say that people were fairly informed by the accidents. Nuclear has a "radioactive black swan" problem: the worst-case accidents have contaminated such huge areas that the tolerance for risk of any kind is low. If the Russians blow up Zaporizhzhia while the wind is blowing east-to-west Europe will have to throw away half its dairy production again, possibly for years. (On the other hand, if Chernobyl had happened while the wind was prevailing west-to-east, would we have even heard about it?)
- hef19898 4y agoThere was no way to keep that secret. Also it kind of indicates the USR only cleaned up under pressure from the West. Chernobyl was evacuated before the West was fully aware of what happened for example. After Chernobyl, a full train load of milk powder, from Eastern Europe, vanished in Bavaria. It was bought by a major dairy producer, when it was decided to destroy it said train was nowhere to be found... Funny coincidence...
- u320 4y ago> If the Russians blow up Zaporizhzhia while the wind is blowing east-to-west Europe Nope. Chernobyl was a different beast altogether.
- gizmo 4y agoWhen will the cancerous dust produced by coal plants finally be considered a cost? Nuclear is more expensive than the optimistic napkin math shows, but so is every other energy source! Europe has invested a trillion or two into intermittent green energy sources in the past 30 years —enough to nuclearize the entire energy grid— and is still totally dependent on coal and gas for survival. The argument has never been that nuclear doesn’t have any downsides. The argument is that without nuclear you’ll freeze. There is no serious alternative. The risks of accidental nuclear contamination are minimal and the risks of nuclear war are greatly underestimated.
- ETH_start 4y ago
- goodpoint 4y agoIt was never cheap and it's getting even more expensive while renewables are much cheaper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...
- otikik 4y agoI believe part of why it’s getting more expensive is the lack of investment and innovation, and that’s driven by bad public perception, which drive laws and investigation budgets.
- throw827474737 4y agoThat belief is fine but wrong ;)
- otikik 4y agoAt least my comment includes some reasoning (งツ)ว
- YurgenJurgensen 4y agoWhy does the comparison with renewables matter if people don't build those renewables either?
- coldtea 4y agoBoth nuclear and renewables are expensive, when the externalities and hidden costs swept under the carpet by industry lobbies are considered. Nothing beats free millions of years in the making energy stored on the ground for us to extract - but even that's non-renewable and getting more cumbersome and expensive to extract.
- goodpoint 4y ago> Both nuclear and renewables are expensive, when the externalities and hidden costs swept under the carpet by industry lobbies are considered. The very opposite. It makes nuclear even more expensive.
- finikytou 4y agowell the green propaganda is a business al gore predicted we would be dead by now and the only outcome is that he is a millionaire now. People love to live off the fear they instill onto other people. Nuclear was the only way to transition to something cleaner later. but green party backed by lobbies ranging from russia, usa, oil and gas made the common people believe that there was a way to go full renewable in the 20's... to be honest those last years have been sickening, looking at youtube videos of charlatan commenting on green energy, co-workers, boss hell even blackrock/nasdaq virtue signaling and retweeting those crooks, pushing this narrative into our schools and our youth to build an army of evangelists of a green world where china-made solar panels with a shelf life of 10-20years would be a solution to global energy while at the same time undermining nuclear... it will be remembered as a dark age in mankind and when people in the future will reflect at our generation it will be with shame and I am pretty sure they wouldn't be able to understand why we made those choices and why they led to a global war.
- moffkalast 4y agoThere's a town in Germany called Staufen that's literally sinking and crumbling apart because of geothermal drilling. Practically geothermal's Chernobyl in terms of PR. I doubt there's much support for it.
- adrianN 4y agoAfaik it's actually rising and crumbling because ground water got to places where it shouldn't be and reacts with the surrounding rock forcing it to expand.