3 ms·

This is science fiction-thinking. Not just optimistic: absolutely naive. We have the tech for nuclear, today. In fact, we could have switched the entire countr

This is science fiction-thinking. Not just optimistic: absolutely naive. We have the tech for nuclear, today. In fact, we could have switched the entire country over to nuclear 30+ years ago. Instead, we’ve been burning fossil fuels for decades because, for so-called environmental activists, an impossible perfect solution is the only thing they’ll accept.

epistasis 4y ago
Run the numbers, time tracking throughout the day, on how you're going to run an entire grid on nuclear. Calculate how much storage you need in order to convert baseload into something that matches demand. Do the same calculation for renewables. Both need storage, and renewables need a bit more storage, but their primary energy is also 5-10x cheaper than nuclear. Calling something "naive" or "fantasy" requires evaluating the current state of the tech, and where the tech is going. From that perspective, especially with the data coming from the nuclear build at Vogtle and Summer, thinking that nuclear GenIII+ reactors have any place on the grid is completely unrealistic. We can not even build four of these nuclear reactors . We started plans to build about a dozen, started on only four, and had to abandon two mid-build. Nuclear is not a good fit for advanced economies, anymore than complex Victorian style wood carving is a fit for advanced economies. Nuclear requires way too much skilled labor, too much construction versus manufacturing. We no longer live in the 80s, we have much better tech, 40 years of advancement, and we need to use the best tech, not the one that was best in 1980.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Run the numbers, time tracking throughout the day, on how you're going to run an entire grid on nuclear. Calculate how much storage you need in order to convert baseload into something that matches demand. Very tiny amounts are needed. It's pretty straightforward to make reactors that can ramp along with daily power use.

epistasis 4y ago

Run the numbers, time tracking throughout the day, on how you're going to run an entire grid on nuclear. Calculate how much storage you need in order to convert baseload into something that matches demand. Do the same calculation for renewables. Both need storage, and renewables need a bit more storage, but their primary energy is also 5-10x cheaper than nuclear. Calling something "naive" or "fantasy" requires evaluating the current state of the tech, and where the tech is going. From that perspective, especially with the data coming from the nuclear build at Vogtle and Summer, thinking that nuclear GenIII+ reactors have any place on the grid is completely unrealistic. We can not even build four of these nuclear reactors . We started plans to build about a dozen, started on only four, and had to abandon two mid-build. Nuclear is not a good fit for advanced economies, anymore than complex Victorian style wood carving is a fit for advanced economies. Nuclear requires way too much skilled labor, too much construction versus manufacturing. We no longer live in the 80s, we have much better tech, 40 years of advancement, and we need to use the best tech, not the one that was best in 1980.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> Run the numbers, time tracking throughout the day, on how you're going to run an entire grid on nuclear. Calculate how much storage you need in order to convert baseload into something that matches demand. Very tiny amounts are needed. It's pretty straightforward to make reactors that can ramp along with daily power use.