6 ms·

The current price of nuclear power in the US and Europe is almost entirely due to overregulation combined with decades of dwindling expertise, with a sprinkle

The current price of nuclear power in the US and Europe is almost entirely due to overregulation combined with decades of dwindling expertise, with a sprinkle of corruption on top. If we remove this regulatory sabotage, nuclear energy can be produced at about ~$30-40/MWh [1] (At 3% discount rate, and in the case of the US/Europe with the assumption that excessive regulation is scaled back a notch.). If we build enough, we could bring that below $30/MWh from the efficiency of scale. Green hydrogen tends to cost ~$100/MWh, just for the fuel. Building and operating the plants themselves comes on top of that. Even if the fuel comes down to $40/MWh by 2050, as predicted in this article[2], it will still be competitive with properly organized nuclear. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... [2] https://www.energytech.com/renewables/article/21238510/riding-currents-to-net-zero-economics-of-floating-wind-to-create-green-hydrogen https://www.energytech.com/renewables/article/21238510/ridin...

pfdietz 4y ago
> The current price of nuclear power in the US and Europe is almost entirely due to overregulation And here I thought it was actually due to the manufacturers living in Fuckupstan, not being able to build their products at costs they had promised. The recent French experience with the EPR is astoundingly bad. Of course that cost could be lower if any screwup could be excused by greasing the appropriate regulatory palms. The regulation would be "over" in the sense that it adds to cost, but is it "over" in the sense of not being necessary? You do not have the contrafactual evidence of what nuclear safety would be like without that regulation. The first link you gave there presented assertions that French reactors were cheap back when they were building lots of them. But those cost figures are opaque and unauditable and cannot be used as evidence that the reactors actually cost what they claimed. Those making those claims had every motivation to lowball them. It's also improper to assume nuclear and renewables are assigned the same discount rate. Nuclear presents larger risks to investors (from technological obsolescence and from failure to complete the power plants at all), which should properly be accounted for by imposing higher interest rates. Assuming renewables and nuclear get the same interest rate is an implicit subsidy. Ultimately, the pronuclear antiregulatory position boils down to "why don't you just suck it up and let us subject you to more radiation, which really isn't bad? You're being so unfair!" One sees this in the whining about the LNT hypothesis for radiation effects.
- trashtester 4y ago
  > Ultimately, the pronuclear antiregulatory position boils down to "why don't you just suck it up and let us subject you to more radiation, which really isn't bad? Well, actually, yes. Coal plants cause 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants per unit of energy produced: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... And typical background radiation is 10x more than even that. And this is for plants built in the 1970s. Tightening requirements beyond that while still allowing coal power to continue their emissions, was completely absurd. > You do not have the contrafactual evidence of what nuclear safety would be like without that regulation. To the contrary. Most nuclear power in existence is still produced by plants that was built BEFORE many of the excessive regulations were put into place. That's part of the reason they were so much cheaper to build. (I'm not making an argument for building Chernobyl type plants, but rather plants with safetly levels corresponding to those built in the 70s in Western countries.) > LNT hypothesis for radiation effects The LNT hypothesis has little to no evidence supporting it over a null hypothesis that radiation below a threshold of about 80 mSv/y. Which is based on statistics for huge groups of people. And the typical radiation received per year from living next to a nuclear plant is around 0.001 mSv/y, 80000 less than the amount where we have any data to indicate that the exposure is harmful. If you have 1 xray taken in a hospital, that's as much radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear plant for 100 years. If you have a CT scan, that's like 1000 to 10000 years. Or, if you fly from LA to NY, you get 0.035 mSv of radiation, the same as 35 years. Do a round trip, and it corresponds to a lifetime. Whether or not you believe in the unfalsifiable hypothesis called LNT, the risk from nuclear power is incredibly tiny compared to ANYTHING we do. Meanwhile, the potential benefits of cheap nuclear power would be massive, both in terms of local air polution (when it becomes cheap enough to replace coal and natural gas), economical benefits or global warming mitigation. And it has a proven track record. France was able to almost completely cut fossil fuels for their electricity production over a few years, with a moderate investment into nuclear. Meanwhile, Germany has spent 100s of billions of € on "renewable" energy, but has almost as high percentage of their electricity produced coming from fossil fuels now as when they started. (They did have some reduction in CO2 emissions due to moving from coal to natural gas, at the cost of becoming highly dependent on Russia) > You're being so unfair! ... whining about the LNT hypothesis.... This kind of emotional response makes it seem that something else is at stake. Of course, if we were able to provide clean air and stop global warming using nuclear energy, some people would lose their jobs, both people selling other forms of energy (fossil, wind, solar) or people working for "environmentalist" organizations or political parties.

pfdietz 4y ago

> The current price of nuclear power in the US and Europe is almost entirely due to overregulation And here I thought it was actually due to the manufacturers living in Fuckupstan, not being able to build their products at costs they had promised. The recent French experience with the EPR is astoundingly bad. Of course that cost could be lower if any screwup could be excused by greasing the appropriate regulatory palms. The regulation would be "over" in the sense that it adds to cost, but is it "over" in the sense of not being necessary? You do not have the contrafactual evidence of what nuclear safety would be like without that regulation. The first link you gave there presented assertions that French reactors were cheap back when they were building lots of them. But those cost figures are opaque and unauditable and cannot be used as evidence that the reactors actually cost what they claimed. Those making those claims had every motivation to lowball them. It's also improper to assume nuclear and renewables are assigned the same discount rate. Nuclear presents larger risks to investors (from technological obsolescence and from failure to complete the power plants at all), which should properly be accounted for by imposing higher interest rates. Assuming renewables and nuclear get the same interest rate is an implicit subsidy. Ultimately, the pronuclear antiregulatory position boils down to "why don't you just suck it up and let us subject you to more radiation, which really isn't bad? You're being so unfair!" One sees this in the whining about the LNT hypothesis for radiation effects.

trashtester 4y ago
> Ultimately, the pronuclear antiregulatory position boils down to "why don't you just suck it up and let us subject you to more radiation, which really isn't bad? Well, actually, yes. Coal plants cause 100 times more radiation than nuclear plants per unit of energy produced: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... And typical background radiation is 10x more than even that. And this is for plants built in the 1970s. Tightening requirements beyond that while still allowing coal power to continue their emissions, was completely absurd. > You do not have the contrafactual evidence of what nuclear safety would be like without that regulation. To the contrary. Most nuclear power in existence is still produced by plants that was built BEFORE many of the excessive regulations were put into place. That's part of the reason they were so much cheaper to build. (I'm not making an argument for building Chernobyl type plants, but rather plants with safetly levels corresponding to those built in the 70s in Western countries.) > LNT hypothesis for radiation effects The LNT hypothesis has little to no evidence supporting it over a null hypothesis that radiation below a threshold of about 80 mSv/y. Which is based on statistics for huge groups of people. And the typical radiation received per year from living next to a nuclear plant is around 0.001 mSv/y, 80000 less than the amount where we have any data to indicate that the exposure is harmful. If you have 1 xray taken in a hospital, that's as much radiation exposure as living next to a nuclear plant for 100 years. If you have a CT scan, that's like 1000 to 10000 years. Or, if you fly from LA to NY, you get 0.035 mSv of radiation, the same as 35 years. Do a round trip, and it corresponds to a lifetime. Whether or not you believe in the unfalsifiable hypothesis called LNT, the risk from nuclear power is incredibly tiny compared to ANYTHING we do. Meanwhile, the potential benefits of cheap nuclear power would be massive, both in terms of local air polution (when it becomes cheap enough to replace coal and natural gas), economical benefits or global warming mitigation. And it has a proven track record. France was able to almost completely cut fossil fuels for their electricity production over a few years, with a moderate investment into nuclear. Meanwhile, Germany has spent 100s of billions of € on "renewable" energy, but has almost as high percentage of their electricity produced coming from fossil fuels now as when they started. (They did have some reduction in CO2 emissions due to moving from coal to natural gas, at the cost of becoming highly dependent on Russia) > You're being so unfair! ... whining about the LNT hypothesis.... This kind of emotional response makes it seem that something else is at stake. Of course, if we were able to provide clean air and stop global warming using nuclear energy, some people would lose their jobs, both people selling other forms of energy (fossil, wind, solar) or people working for "environmentalist" organizations or political parties.