3 ms·

Because nuclear is enormously expensive and has always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. Subsidizing nuclear made sense when we were in the first R&D and

Because nuclear is enormously expensive and has always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. Subsidizing nuclear made sense when we were in the first R&D and commercialization phase 60 years ago. The idea to keep shoveling money into that black hole stopped making sense decades ago. Coal and nuclear are uncompetitive simply from the cost of the steam side. Today you can just about give a steam plant free energy, and it still makes a loss. Solar or wind does not have this limitation. CCGT gas plants get around it by having a turbine giving raw mechanical power and then utilizing the same awful steam side to get the last percentage points of efficiency at a much smaller required scale. Coal still gets built where gas infrastructure does not exist, but that's about it.

vagrantJin 4y ago
> Because it is enormously expensive and have always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. I don't understand what this means. Are you suggesting there are utilities not funded by taxes? Power generation will always be expensive and heavily subsidized by the state along with Water and agriculture. Coal is the next best thing. Plentiful, cheap, super polluting. I'm not sure a grid can rely on solar and wind. They are getting cheaper ofcourse but they need a lot of land, high maintenance, and not exactly the most reliable. We wil figure it out eventually.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Usually electricity transmission is funded by taxes since that is centralized infrastructure. Production is often a commercial endeavor where energy is trade by the hour, or through longer contracts, on open markets. This depends on the country though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool
Ajedi32 4y ago
Are you sure we aren't still in that "first R&D and commercialization phase"? One might argue that we never moved beyond that point, after disasters caused by early reactor designs killed any interest in further advancements.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  That's a bit hard to argue. There were plenty of early meltdowns in the 1950s and we kept on going. Now as we add it all up we see that fossil and biofuel combustion kills the entirety of commercial nuclear power industry's lifetime death toll ever 8 hours. And nuclear is low carbon and 24/7 and low footprint. So yeah it still looks pretty darn good. Hence Japan's announcement.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    The great thing today is that fossil and biofuels are not alternatives today. It is renewables. So no point arguing a straw man.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Renewables don't yet exist with the capability to do all season power. See Germany last month. Notice also how much gas is being built as we speak. So the straw man is actually renewables. Also the world is about 82% fossil and biofuel.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        So it is impossible until it is possible? Gotta prove it physically instead of engineering a system that is known to work. > Also the world is about 82% fossil and biofuel. Primary energy usage, so an utterly irrelevant metric. With a completely electrified society, the primary energy use decreases heavily. As we all know, heat engines throw away 65-80% of the incoming energy as heat leading to that number.
scythe 4y ago
>Because nuclear is enormously expensive I've seen the LCoE numbers [1] everyone uses to argue that solar + storage is cheaper than nuclear. It does show a price premium for nuclear. But it is not "enormous" (it's maybe 2-3x more expensive). It's also plausible that nuclear, being an older technology, is less likely to run into unexpected costs, particularly those associated with the rate of implementation — production bottlenecks, increased land prices, etc. 1: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Given the outcome of Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and NuScale that predictability leans heavily towards renewables. They get built on time and within budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr-uamps-rising-steel-prices-interest-rates/636619/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr...
  - scythe 4y ago
    The EPA numbers are from 2022, so assuming a modestly competent methodology they've already taken these issues into account. Choosing the six worst projects you can find is hardly a good analysis. The scale-up issues I mentioned would not be applicable until you actually have very high construction volume, which currently does not exist anywhere. For example, the US built some 20 GW of PV in 2021, which is worth about 40 TWh/year assuming a typical capacity factor. But at that rate it would take some 90 years to build enough for the whole country, ignoring a likely increase in electricity consumption for heating and transportation (displacing gas), and ignoring any replacement. So the actually needed rate of solar installation is probably around five to ten times the current rate. Certainly, there is plenty of land and silicon in the long run. But there is still the question of whether it will be bought and produced at similar prices when the market pressures are that much larger. And the US still beat e.g. Germany in PV installs per capita in 2021. The goal is not only to get off fossil fuels, but to do it fast.
h1fra 4y ago
Nuclear is expensive to build yet it's the most efficient solution. Electricity (and water, school, roads, etc...) is a requirement to live a decent life. The fact that is unthinkable for you that it could be done without profit is saying a lot.
tcgv 4y ago
> Coal and nuclear are uncompetitive simply from the cost of the steam side Do you have any reference regarding this claim? Like the ROI for each kind of energy source, or the payback time for the investment to build the energy plant.
panick21_ 4y ago
> Because nuclear is enormously expensive and has always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. Pretty much all modern electricity has been subsidized massively. As for nuclear being expensive. France built its initial fleet in 15 years, the debt of those programs was commercially financed and was paid of over the next 30-50 years. During that time virtually all French people also paid a very low amount of avg cost for their electricity. Modern coal can actually use modern turbines and those would certainty not be un-competitive with free fuel. Modern nuclear can do the same. And PWR nuclear over long term, as it can exist for 60-100 years actually delivers stable energy, if that was currently priced in to current market, it would actually make sense. If you had to rebuild a huge grid today, from 0 to say 1000TWh. Nuclear is the nobrainer solution still, even with PWR.

vagrantJin 4y ago

> Because it is enormously expensive and have always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. I don't understand what this means. Are you suggesting there are utilities not funded by taxes? Power generation will always be expensive and heavily subsidized by the state along with Water and agriculture. Coal is the next best thing. Plentiful, cheap, super polluting. I'm not sure a grid can rely on solar and wind. They are getting cheaper ofcourse but they need a lot of land, high maintenance, and not exactly the most reliable. We wil figure it out eventually.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Usually electricity transmission is funded by taxes since that is centralized infrastructure. Production is often a commercial endeavor where energy is trade by the hour, or through longer contracts, on open markets. This depends on the country though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Pool

Ajedi32 4y ago

Are you sure we aren't still in that "first R&D and commercialization phase"? One might argue that we never moved beyond that point, after disasters caused by early reactor designs killed any interest in further advancements.

acidburnNSA 4y ago
That's a bit hard to argue. There were plenty of early meltdowns in the 1950s and we kept on going. Now as we add it all up we see that fossil and biofuel combustion kills the entirety of commercial nuclear power industry's lifetime death toll ever 8 hours. And nuclear is low carbon and 24/7 and low footprint. So yeah it still looks pretty darn good. Hence Japan's announcement.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  The great thing today is that fossil and biofuels are not alternatives today. It is renewables. So no point arguing a straw man.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Renewables don't yet exist with the capability to do all season power. See Germany last month. Notice also how much gas is being built as we speak. So the straw man is actually renewables. Also the world is about 82% fossil and biofuel.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      So it is impossible until it is possible? Gotta prove it physically instead of engineering a system that is known to work. > Also the world is about 82% fossil and biofuel. Primary energy usage, so an utterly irrelevant metric. With a completely electrified society, the primary energy use decreases heavily. As we all know, heat engines throw away 65-80% of the incoming energy as heat leading to that number.

scythe 4y ago

>Because nuclear is enormously expensive I've seen the LCoE numbers [1] everyone uses to argue that solar + storage is cheaper than nuclear. It does show a price premium for nuclear. But it is not "enormous" (it's maybe 2-3x more expensive). It's also plausible that nuclear, being an older technology, is less likely to run into unexpected costs, particularly those associated with the rate of implementation — production bottlenecks, increased land prices, etc. 1: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

Gwypaas 4y ago
Given the outcome of Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, Vogtle, Virgil C. Summer and NuScale that predictability leans heavily towards renewables. They get built on time and within budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Gener... https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr-uamps-rising-steel-prices-interest-rates/636619/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-nuclear-reactor-smr...
- scythe 4y ago
  The EPA numbers are from 2022, so assuming a modestly competent methodology they've already taken these issues into account. Choosing the six worst projects you can find is hardly a good analysis. The scale-up issues I mentioned would not be applicable until you actually have very high construction volume, which currently does not exist anywhere. For example, the US built some 20 GW of PV in 2021, which is worth about 40 TWh/year assuming a typical capacity factor. But at that rate it would take some 90 years to build enough for the whole country, ignoring a likely increase in electricity consumption for heating and transportation (displacing gas), and ignoring any replacement. So the actually needed rate of solar installation is probably around five to ten times the current rate. Certainly, there is plenty of land and silicon in the long run. But there is still the question of whether it will be bought and produced at similar prices when the market pressures are that much larger. And the US still beat e.g. Germany in PV installs per capita in 2021. The goal is not only to get off fossil fuels, but to do it fast.

h1fra 4y ago

Nuclear is expensive to build yet it's the most efficient solution. Electricity (and water, school, roads, etc...) is a requirement to live a decent life. The fact that is unthinkable for you that it could be done without profit is saying a lot.

tcgv 4y ago

> Coal and nuclear are uncompetitive simply from the cost of the steam side Do you have any reference regarding this claim? Like the ROI for each kind of energy source, or the payback time for the investment to build the energy plant.

panick21_ 4y ago

> Because nuclear is enormously expensive and has always been subsidized by taxes or ratepayers. Pretty much all modern electricity has been subsidized massively. As for nuclear being expensive. France built its initial fleet in 15 years, the debt of those programs was commercially financed and was paid of over the next 30-50 years. During that time virtually all French people also paid a very low amount of avg cost for their electricity. Modern coal can actually use modern turbines and those would certainty not be un-competitive with free fuel. Modern nuclear can do the same. And PWR nuclear over long term, as it can exist for 60-100 years actually delivers stable energy, if that was currently priced in to current market, it would actually make sense. If you had to rebuild a huge grid today, from 0 to say 1000TWh. Nuclear is the nobrainer solution still, even with PWR.