4 ms·

Everything has trade-offs, there is no simply "better" option on the table, every option sucks. Fossil fuels have co2 emissions, price fluctuations and energy s

Everything has trade-offs, there is no simply "better" option on the table, every option sucks. Fossil fuels have co2 emissions, price fluctuations and energy security as issues (as seen with Russia today who weaponised their supply), renewables have consistency problems which is problematic until we solve our energy storage issues, nuclear has massive issues around waste and runtime danger and hydro is limited by geography.

LatteLazy 4y ago
You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.
- ChefboyOG 4y ago
  This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).
Retric 4y ago
Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. Things presumably look slightly different in Japan, but this is looking like political rather than an economic decision. Right this moment they have some cover to save the industry even if little is going to change any time soon.
- raspberry1337 4y ago
  Last numbers I looked at had nuclear much more profitable than solar, especially during winter, hence why China is currently installing 20 new reactors, with a goal for much more in the future.
  - Retric 4y ago
    China has been adding VASTLY more solar than nuclear. 20 new reactors is only something like 5GW/year because of how long it takes to build nuclear.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      Sure, but why do you think they'd adding both? Solar for intermittent, and nuclear for base.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Finite manufacturing capacity is a factor. 5GW / year @ 90% capacity factor ~= 3 million 200W panels @ 30% capacity factor + 40-60GWh of batteries. It’s not completely equivalent, but they both need roughly the same amount of peaking power plants to make up the difference. Plus Solar’s costs are front loaded, with China’s rapidly growing economy they can ignore decommissioning or even long term operating costs as largely irrelevant.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  > Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. That's interesting. Two queries: Are they real world numbers or projections vs real numbers? And are they done in the sort of setup that we have in the UK, where renewable is soft-subsidised by always winning the bids for demand when it's available, and non-renewable gets what's left.
willcipriano 4y ago
> nuclear has massive issues around waste The waste issue has been solved. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-borehole-nuclear-waste-disposal-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-likely/?sh=1b0d5ebb67c8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-bore...
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  I wouldn't consider the existence of a start-up proof that a problem has been solved, especially given the need of hyping one's own product (and possibly downplaying any remaining challenges) as a nascent organisation.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    This isn't new stuff[0], just made more affordable by some technology from the fracking industry. It's Yucca Mountain without the mountain. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-just-throw-our-nuclear-waste-down-a-deep-hole/?sh=78e91b753b64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-j... [0-1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
    - Quarrelsome 4y ago
      Sure but until it is actually utilised and proven to work on the scales required for existing nuclear deployments it still remains an estimate and not a precise cost.
      - willcipriano 4y ago
        Now do grid scale batteries. "Renewables" have the same issue and are looked at rather uncritically. We dig boreholes like this on a regular basis, all that's left is tossing the waste containers in.
karmakurtisaani 4y ago
I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.
- Quarrelsome 4y ago
  > I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost. Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor. Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.

LatteLazy 4y ago

You're not wrong, but that's not my point. If people want to spend money on X, that's up to them. But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. So as soon as people want to pretend it is an "investment" there very much is a simple better option: whatever costs less and generates more revenue. On that basis Nuclear is never the right answer.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lelanthran 4y ago
> But it isn't an investment unless they expect to make their cash back plus a profit. If that is the bar you're going to use for "investment", then no power generation spending is ever an investment. Not coal, not batteries, not geothermal, not renewables, nothing... Because none of the above make their cash back plus a profit; they're all subsidised by taxpayers.
ChefboyOG 4y ago
This is pedantry, and incorrect at that. To invest in something simply means to spend some resources and expect a material result. Energy independence, carbon neutrality, scientific progress, etc. are all material results one could hope for while "investing". If you think another form of energy production is better, that's a perfectly reasonable objection. Twisting the discussion into a debate over the precise definition of "investment" is silly.
vlovich123 4y ago
You’re taking too narrow a definition. Investment: > Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Invest: > to commit (money) in order to earn a financial return > to make use of for future benefits or advantages invested her time wisely > to involve or engage especially emotionally were deeply invested in their children's lives Clearly you can outlay capital now for a future benefit tomorrow that isn’t just your original capital back + the investment. Making sure you’re energy supply is stable so that your economy is working better and your national security is a bit more stable seems like a clear ROI even if you don’t make your capital back + profit directly (it does have potential indirect financial benefits too though).

Retric 4y ago

Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. Things presumably look slightly different in Japan, but this is looking like political rather than an economic decision. Right this moment they have some cover to save the industry even if little is going to change any time soon.

raspberry1337 4y ago
Last numbers I looked at had nuclear much more profitable than solar, especially during winter, hence why China is currently installing 20 new reactors, with a goal for much more in the future.
- Retric 4y ago
  China has been adding VASTLY more solar than nuclear. 20 new reactors is only something like 5GW/year because of how long it takes to build nuclear.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Sure, but why do you think they'd adding both? Solar for intermittent, and nuclear for base.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Finite manufacturing capacity is a factor. 5GW / year @ 90% capacity factor ~= 3 million 200W panels @ 30% capacity factor + 40-60GWh of batteries. It’s not completely equivalent, but they both need roughly the same amount of peaking power plants to make up the difference. Plus Solar’s costs are front loaded, with China’s rapidly growing economy they can ignore decommissioning or even long term operating costs as largely irrelevant.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> Last numbers I looked at had Unsubsidized Battery backed solar as already significantly cheaper than unsubsidized nuclear at scale. That's interesting. Two queries: Are they real world numbers or projections vs real numbers? And are they done in the sort of setup that we have in the UK, where renewable is soft-subsidised by always winning the bids for demand when it's available, and non-renewable gets what's left.

willcipriano 4y ago

> nuclear has massive issues around waste The waste issue has been solved. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-borehole-nuclear-waste-disposal-just-got-a-whole-lot-more-likely/?sh=1b0d5ebb67c8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/06/24/deep-bore...

Quarrelsome 4y ago
I wouldn't consider the existence of a start-up proof that a problem has been solved, especially given the need of hyping one's own product (and possibly downplaying any remaining challenges) as a nascent organisation.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  This isn't new stuff[0], just made more affordable by some technology from the fracking industry. It's Yucca Mountain without the mountain. [0]https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-just-throw-our-nuclear-waste-down-a-deep-hole/?sh=78e91b753b64 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/03/05/cant-we-j... [0-1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
  - Quarrelsome 4y ago
    Sure but until it is actually utilised and proven to work on the scales required for existing nuclear deployments it still remains an estimate and not a precise cost.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Now do grid scale batteries. "Renewables" have the same issue and are looked at rather uncritically. We dig boreholes like this on a regular basis, all that's left is tossing the waste containers in.

karmakurtisaani 4y ago

I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. The real problem is the cost and complexity of construction, which could be solved with mini reactors where the technology is still not quite there for mass production. The licensing is also a problem at least in some countries, as getting a permit is very difficult it makes sense to only build massive power plants.

Quarrelsome 4y ago
> I think the issues you list for nuclear are exaggerated. I don't. Current estimates for the dismantlement of Sellafield in the UK is £121 billion and that figure is likely somewhat lower than the final cost. Given that most proposals are created in order to be accepted there is a high chance the total costs of the plant (including decommissioning) are understated. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantling-sellafield-epic-task-shutting-down-decomissioned-nuclear-site https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/15/dismantl...
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Reading the article, you can see why it's not an honest example to back up your point. Sellafield was built partly without decommissioning in mind, it was originally used for something else (making plutonium for weapons) and still has 140 tonnes of that plutonium on site. It was built with world war 3 in mind. It's not a modern nuclear reactor. Sellafield has more unknowns that most, but I doubt it's been underbid. I think nuclear proposals undergo a great deal of scrutiny and are some of the most cost-complete in existence. Hinkley Point C in the UK, its masterful government negotiation aside, has I believe a total lifetime cost of around £40bn.