4 ms·

The article seems to blame "the bankers" for not investing in nuclear fusion, while completely ignoring the fact that most of the cost of new nuclear constructi

The article seems to blame "the bankers" for not investing in nuclear fusion, while completely ignoring the fact that most of the cost of new nuclear construction is from regulatory changes that happened in the last 50 years.

LastTrain 4y ago
Those exist for a reason, care to say why they aren’t necessary before dismissing them outright? Surely you agree some amount of regulation is necessary?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  Any set of nuclear regulations that aren't just a copy of France's nuclear regulations are probably too restrictive. France gets 3/4 of their electricity from nuclear without any major incidents. (Obviously this is overly simplistic, there is a set of natural disasters that France isn't subject to that other countries are, so France is just a starting point. But every addition should be justified by answer the question "What about our circumstances makes us different from France here?")
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Half of France's nuclear fleet is offline due to maintenance issues. They've gone from an electricity exporter to importer when it is most needed. Have a look at Flamanville 3 and try to sell another 50 of those to the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
    - gamegoblin 4y ago
      And yet... no major safety events and still generating a significant amount of electricity. Obviously, as you point out, it could be better. But I'll take France, issues and all, over coal plants every day of the week. I expect France will get their act together. Re: net importer, their amount of import is basically a rounding error, on the order of 0.1% of their energy usage. They are energy neutral.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        The great thing is that the alternative is not coal plants anymore, it is renewables. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
        acidburnNSA 4y ago
        LCOE is unrelated to systems costs of large decarbonized grid because it leaves out the costs of long-term backup, increased transmission, overcapacity needed to fill the night batteries, and more.
- wolfram74 4y ago
  You've made two arguments here, all are necessary and some are necessary. There's a record of anti-nuclear sentiment being stoked by fossil fuel industry[0] [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=35d5b1a67453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
nosianu 4y ago
The "key point" according to the article itself is: > Now here’s the key point I’m trying to make: it’s not that fusion is expensive, it’s that everything else is cheaper.
Gwypaas 4y ago
TMI, Fukushima and Chernobyl are acceptable events which we should simply deal with every 10th year when they happen?
- theironhammer 4y ago
- mjhay 4y ago
  Those events killed orders of magnitude less people than coal plants do every year, from normal operation. Fukushima, in particular, only had one death attributable to radiation. Fission is the only operational technology that can replace fossil fuels for base load. Grid storage for solar and wind is just so under-developed and difficult to scale. We have to stop emitting CO2 ASAP, we can't wait for tech that may or may not work. Ruling out fission because of these demonstrably small risks is wildly irrational, when the alternative is total global social and ecological collapse. Humans tend to judge unfamiliar but small risks as being much larger - think of how there are annual panics about razor blades/fentanyl/whatever in Halloween candy, but not the cars that kill over 70 children each Halloween on average. This same tendency is exactly why there is so much irrational fear around nuclear.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    The great thing is that coal is not the alternative anymore, renewables are. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Base load on the producer side is an outdated term. It simply came into existence because the most inflexible plants used to be the cheapest, that is not the case anymore. You can talk about base demand, but that can be fulfilled using any source. Or as Wikipedia puts it: > The base load (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants, dispatchable generation, or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources, depending on which approach has the best mix of cost, availability and reliability in any particular market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load > This same tendency is exactly why there is so much irrational fear around nuclear. Or because you still have to measure the radioactivity of wild game and mushrooms in northern Sweden and Bavaria. > Although game is considered a delicacy in Bavaria, large amounts of meat are disposed of. Because many wild boars are still contaminated with radioactivity - even 35 years after the Chernobyl reactor accident. https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-04-26-35-years-after-chernobyl--inedible-game-meat-in-bavaria.ByNr9KuEPd.html https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-04-26-35-years-after-...
prewett 4y ago
His point is that even if the reactor is free, it’s not competitive because of everything required to convert the heat to electricity makes it more expensive. That part has nothing to do with regulation.

LastTrain 4y ago

Those exist for a reason, care to say why they aren’t necessary before dismissing them outright? Surely you agree some amount of regulation is necessary?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gamegoblin 4y ago
Any set of nuclear regulations that aren't just a copy of France's nuclear regulations are probably too restrictive. France gets 3/4 of their electricity from nuclear without any major incidents. (Obviously this is overly simplistic, there is a set of natural disasters that France isn't subject to that other countries are, so France is just a starting point. But every addition should be justified by answer the question "What about our circumstances makes us different from France here?")
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Half of France's nuclear fleet is offline due to maintenance issues. They've gone from an electricity exporter to importer when it is most needed. Have a look at Flamanville 3 and try to sell another 50 of those to the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
  - gamegoblin 4y ago
    And yet... no major safety events and still generating a significant amount of electricity. Obviously, as you point out, it could be better. But I'll take France, issues and all, over coal plants every day of the week. I expect France will get their act together. Re: net importer, their amount of import is basically a rounding error, on the order of 0.1% of their energy usage. They are energy neutral.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      The great thing is that the alternative is not coal plants anymore, it is renewables. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        LCOE is unrelated to systems costs of large decarbonized grid because it leaves out the costs of long-term backup, increased transmission, overcapacity needed to fill the night batteries, and more.
wolfram74 4y ago
You've made two arguments here, all are necessary and some are necessary. There's a record of anti-nuclear sentiment being stoked by fossil fuel industry[0] [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=35d5b1a67453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

nosianu 4y ago

The "key point" according to the article itself is: > Now here’s the key point I’m trying to make: it’s not that fusion is expensive, it’s that everything else is cheaper.

Gwypaas 4y ago

TMI, Fukushima and Chernobyl are acceptable events which we should simply deal with every 10th year when they happen?

theironhammer 4y ago
mjhay 4y ago
Those events killed orders of magnitude less people than coal plants do every year, from normal operation. Fukushima, in particular, only had one death attributable to radiation. Fission is the only operational technology that can replace fossil fuels for base load. Grid storage for solar and wind is just so under-developed and difficult to scale. We have to stop emitting CO2 ASAP, we can't wait for tech that may or may not work. Ruling out fission because of these demonstrably small risks is wildly irrational, when the alternative is total global social and ecological collapse. Humans tend to judge unfamiliar but small risks as being much larger - think of how there are annual panics about razor blades/fentanyl/whatever in Halloween candy, but not the cars that kill over 70 children each Halloween on average. This same tendency is exactly why there is so much irrational fear around nuclear.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  The great thing is that coal is not the alternative anymore, renewables are. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Base load on the producer side is an outdated term. It simply came into existence because the most inflexible plants used to be the cheapest, that is not the case anymore. You can talk about base demand, but that can be fulfilled using any source. Or as Wikipedia puts it: > The base load (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants, dispatchable generation, or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources, depending on which approach has the best mix of cost, availability and reliability in any particular market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load > This same tendency is exactly why there is so much irrational fear around nuclear. Or because you still have to measure the radioactivity of wild game and mushrooms in northern Sweden and Bavaria. > Although game is considered a delicacy in Bavaria, large amounts of meat are disposed of. Because many wild boars are still contaminated with radioactivity - even 35 years after the Chernobyl reactor accident. https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-04-26-35-years-after-chernobyl--inedible-game-meat-in-bavaria.ByNr9KuEPd.html https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2021-04-26-35-years-after-...

prewett 4y ago

His point is that even if the reactor is free, it’s not competitive because of everything required to convert the heat to electricity makes it more expensive. That part has nothing to do with regulation.