4 ms·

> It seems many in this thread don't appreciate the energy density requirements of modern baseload. It's more about nuclear being too expensive. If nuclear'

> It seems many in this thread don't appreciate the energy density requirements of modern baseload. It's more about nuclear being too expensive. If nuclear's great value and doesn't need the state to underwrite everything from the disaster liability insurance on downwards, great, go knock yourself out; get finance, get approvals, build a plant, go sell your product on the market. Just don't expect consumers to sign up for a multi-decade deal to guarantee to buy your output at a higher price than any other provider before you'll even pour any concrete.[0][1][2] [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 [1] https://www.iisd.org/story/the-united-kingdom-is-to-subsidize-nuclear-power-but-at-what-cost/ https://www.iisd.org/story/the-united-kingdom-is-to-subsidiz... [2] https://www.ft.com/content/945d8b79-ba82-4ebc-894e-73eec3892e46 https://www.ft.com/content/945d8b79-ba82-4ebc-894e-73eec3892...

Turing_Machine 4y ago
> nuclear's great value and doesn't need the state to underwrite everything from the disaster liability insurance on downwards, great, go knock yourself out; get finance, get approvals, Every significant solar energy installation in the world was built with massive government subsidies.
algoatecorn 4y ago
Cost is a separate issue/argument from simply being able to provide baseload energy to modern society. Let's imagine we generate enough renewable energy to power modern society. What is the cost of overhauling our grid to dynamically distribute it in a way that avoids rolling blackouts? We're talking about reinventing our society to revolve around several transient energy sources. Nuclear stays on essentially 24/7, has enormous output, and the input cost is so insignificant that even if the cost of uranium increased 5x, it would barely change the cost of energy for consumers.
- ben_w 4y ago
  > What is the cost of overhauling our grid to dynamically distribute it in a way that avoids rolling blackouts? The upper bound is the cost of a global power grid or a lot of storage, either of which would cost roughly half as much as the current annual spend on just unrefined crude oil. > We're talking about reinventing our society to revolve around several transient energy sources. No, that's just your failure of imagination. > the input cost is so insignificant that even if the cost of uranium increased 5x, it would barely change the cost of energy for consumers. The the reason for that is also why nuclear is the most expensive major power source right now: all the other things in nuclear power are much more expensive than the fuel.
Manuel_D 4y ago
The cost of generation is not the same thing as the net cost of transitioning an energy grid to a different energy source. Wind and solar have cheap generation, but have much greater infrastructure costs than nuclear. Storage is a huge one, we don't have effective means of storage besides hydroelectric dams which are geographically limited. Lithium ion batteries still take over $500/KWh to install (the <$200 figures are for the battery cells themselves, omitting the cost of installation, transformers, maintenance, etc.). And they're set to increase as raw materials are strained [1][2]. This is why plans to transition to a majority renewable grid typically assume that hydrogen, or some other form of storage will provide storage at a fraction of the cost of existing storage methods. Nobody has actually built commercial hydrogen storage, though, so this is a big assumption. There's also the cost of transmission. Energy dense sources like nuclear power can be placed close to electricity demand. But low-density sources by definition need to be spread out and distributed. Decentralized generation is not a good thing, as it requires more transmission infrastructure to support. It's not uncommon for renewable projects to be denied because the infrastructure can't handle the transmission requirements [3]. Nuclear avoids these issues. It's a non-intermittent source with the greatest capacity factor of any generation system. Downtime is usually scheduled. This eliminates the need for storage. It's also energy dense. It can be used in place of existing fossil fuel heat engines, avoided in the need to make large build-outs of transmission infrastructure. 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/7/7/lithiums-insane-costs-threaten-ev-fix-for-climate-change https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/7/7/lithiums-insane-c... 2. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium 3. https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-energy-high-voltage-transmission-lines https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > but have much greater infrastructure costs than nuclear. And proponents of solar forget that they have to cover large swaths of land with solar to begin with. Some places don't have the luxury of converting land to solar farms
  - spangry 4y ago
    The transmission and land costs also trade off against each other to an extent: land close to demand is more expensive, cheaper land far away from demand requires more transmission infrastructure.

Turing_Machine 4y ago

> nuclear's great value and doesn't need the state to underwrite everything from the disaster liability insurance on downwards, great, go knock yourself out; get finance, get approvals, Every significant solar energy installation in the world was built with massive government subsidies.

algoatecorn 4y ago

Cost is a separate issue/argument from simply being able to provide baseload energy to modern society. Let's imagine we generate enough renewable energy to power modern society. What is the cost of overhauling our grid to dynamically distribute it in a way that avoids rolling blackouts? We're talking about reinventing our society to revolve around several transient energy sources. Nuclear stays on essentially 24/7, has enormous output, and the input cost is so insignificant that even if the cost of uranium increased 5x, it would barely change the cost of energy for consumers.

ben_w 4y ago
> What is the cost of overhauling our grid to dynamically distribute it in a way that avoids rolling blackouts? The upper bound is the cost of a global power grid or a lot of storage, either of which would cost roughly half as much as the current annual spend on just unrefined crude oil. > We're talking about reinventing our society to revolve around several transient energy sources. No, that's just your failure of imagination. > the input cost is so insignificant that even if the cost of uranium increased 5x, it would barely change the cost of energy for consumers. The the reason for that is also why nuclear is the most expensive major power source right now: all the other things in nuclear power are much more expensive than the fuel.

Manuel_D 4y ago

The cost of generation is not the same thing as the net cost of transitioning an energy grid to a different energy source. Wind and solar have cheap generation, but have much greater infrastructure costs than nuclear. Storage is a huge one, we don't have effective means of storage besides hydroelectric dams which are geographically limited. Lithium ion batteries still take over $500/KWh to install (the <$200 figures are for the battery cells themselves, omitting the cost of installation, transformers, maintenance, etc.). And they're set to increase as raw materials are strained [1][2]. This is why plans to transition to a majority renewable grid typically assume that hydrogen, or some other form of storage will provide storage at a fraction of the cost of existing storage methods. Nobody has actually built commercial hydrogen storage, though, so this is a big assumption. There's also the cost of transmission. Energy dense sources like nuclear power can be placed close to electricity demand. But low-density sources by definition need to be spread out and distributed. Decentralized generation is not a good thing, as it requires more transmission infrastructure to support. It's not uncommon for renewable projects to be denied because the infrastructure can't handle the transmission requirements [3]. Nuclear avoids these issues. It's a non-intermittent source with the greatest capacity factor of any generation system. Downtime is usually scheduled. This eliminates the need for storage. It's also energy dense. It can be used in place of existing fossil fuel heat engines, avoided in the need to make large build-outs of transmission infrastructure. 1. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/7/7/lithiums-insane-costs-threaten-ev-fix-for-climate-change https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/7/7/lithiums-insane-c... 2. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium 3. https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-energy-high-voltage-transmission-lines https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean-ene...

dmitriid 4y ago
> but have much greater infrastructure costs than nuclear. And proponents of solar forget that they have to cover large swaths of land with solar to begin with. Some places don't have the luxury of converting land to solar farms
- spangry 4y ago
  The transmission and land costs also trade off against each other to an extent: land close to demand is more expensive, cheaper land far away from demand requires more transmission infrastructure.