5 ms·

Bullshit metrics calibrated on a past that doesn't matter. The past risks don't predict the future risks, especially not if the intention is to scale up nuclear

Bullshit metrics calibrated on a past that doesn't matter. The past risks don't predict the future risks, especially not if the intention is to scale up nuclear power by a factor of ten or so. I don't even think the risks will scale linearly, because that scale-up is impossible with the current regulatory posture that is keeping the risks down. There are already energy storage solutions. To ignore those, to claim categorically those will not improve, seems to be a particularly "convenient" argument.

realusername 4y ago
There's no storage solution which can be used for winter for a whole country right now, that's a hard fact. Maybe they'll improve yes (or maybe not) but that's called R&D, not an available solution and you cannot count on it.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  Storing energy for the winter will only be a problem at the very end of phasing out fossil fuels. At some point some gas plants may only run during the winter. But there are also biofuels for example. And there are for example solutions around pumping water into a lake. That sounds like it will work long-term. You make an abysmal job argueing for nuclear power just because not everything works perfectly already. Scaling up nuclear power to the scale required to replace fossil fuels would take decades. Unless the risks are ignored and enhanced extremely, like you seem to be proposing. But there is zero political appetite in the electorates of the world to invest billions into a technology that takes decades to come to fruition, takes more decades to recuperate the investment and can literally blow up in your face any time, especially when some neighbor is angry at you.
  - realusername 4y ago
    All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved. Biofuel is actually a good example, since you mention biofuel as a potential backup strategy (I don't think it will work just because of the scale anyways but that's beside the point, let's imagine that in theory it could work). The costs of creating all this additional infrastructure isn't usually factored in the renewable strategy either, but it should. > can literally blow up in your face any time I don't think you have an understanding on how it really works, it's not a bomb...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-tracking-tool https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... > I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. > Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project.
      - realusername 4y ago
        > Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage- https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. > It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. > Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project. Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now.

realusername 4y ago

There's no storage solution which can be used for winter for a whole country right now, that's a hard fact. Maybe they'll improve yes (or maybe not) but that's called R&D, not an available solution and you cannot count on it.

bayesian_horse 4y ago
Storing energy for the winter will only be a problem at the very end of phasing out fossil fuels. At some point some gas plants may only run during the winter. But there are also biofuels for example. And there are for example solutions around pumping water into a lake. That sounds like it will work long-term. You make an abysmal job argueing for nuclear power just because not everything works perfectly already. Scaling up nuclear power to the scale required to replace fossil fuels would take decades. Unless the risks are ignored and enhanced extremely, like you seem to be proposing. But there is zero political appetite in the electorates of the world to invest billions into a technology that takes decades to come to fruition, takes more decades to recuperate the investment and can literally blow up in your face any time, especially when some neighbor is angry at you.
- realusername 4y ago
  All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved. Biofuel is actually a good example, since you mention biofuel as a potential backup strategy (I don't think it will work just because of the scale anyways but that's beside the point, let's imagine that in theory it could work). The costs of creating all this additional infrastructure isn't usually factored in the renewable strategy either, but it should. > can literally blow up in your face any time I don't think you have an understanding on how it really works, it's not a bomb...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > All the water storage options are pretty much at full capacity everywhere in the world and for a good reason, it's relatively effective, easy to build and the tech is old, that won't help for renewable deployment because you can't build it much further. Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-tracking-tool https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... > I'm not saying nuclear doesn't have its downsides, it's just that it's one of the only realistic option with the current tech. Renewables really aren't up to the task as we see it now in Europe. It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. > Additionally since you're talking about finance, usually external costs aren't counted in renewables that's why they falsely appear cheaper, Germany for example already spent around ~2x the cost of the whole French grid and is still very far from the transition from what France achieved Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project.
    - realusername 4y ago
      > Yup. Pumped hydro is aall taken and there's none under construction. Just look at this map of projects under development https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage- https://professional.hydropower.org/page/map-pumped-storage-... You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. > It really isn't because every potential Uranium mine on the planet would have to be under development right now for it to be remotely relevant. And even then it would take far longer. That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. > Citation needed. Be sure to include the costs of enrichment, reprocessing, and colonial mining activities. Additionally Germany ate a bunch of the first mover costs. For a valid comparison you'd include the manhattan project. Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now.