3 ms·

Nuclear projects aren't getting financed due to propaganda against them, it is because they are bad investments. When people are putting their own money on the

Nuclear projects aren't getting financed due to propaganda against them, it is because they are bad investments. When people are putting their own money on the line, they don't believe nuclear will be cheaper than renewables + batteries in 10 years.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Right, they're not getting financed because of things like government prohibitions (as in the case here) and unequal consideration making them bad or impossible investments. The propaganda is presumably to get the public to go along with it.
PaulHoule 4y ago
It is more that nuclear hasn't been competitive against natural gas in places that have natural gas since 1980. Betting on renewables + batteries in 2022 is like betting on the fast breeder reactor in 1955. There certainly is going to be development in batteries and other forms of storage in the next decade but we don't know where the minerals will come from, we'll have more grid scale batteries catch on fire, face more challenges siting solar farms because, as a major land use, they could affect endangered species, etc. There will be progress there but remember that decarbonization is not just replacing the current electricity grid but it also involves replacing gas appliances with electric appliances, using electricity for heat in buildings (probably with heat pumps), electric cars (that people will want to charge at night and thus require more grid storage as well as competing for battery materials), replacing industrial uses of energy, synthesizing e-fuels for aviation and other special applications, etc. Nuclear as we know it faces two problems: (1) the steam turbine and heat exchangers of the LWR are enormous such that an LWR would have a hard time competing even if the heat was free, (2) every country other than Russia has built LWRs sporadically and faced terrible project management problems; China is catching up with Russia with their Hualong One (4 completed in the past 2 years, 12 under construction now.) Long term the industry has to get rid of the water to get the temperature up so the powerset can be made more economical and you can use the heat for industrial applications such as thermochemical hydrogen, with the big plus that a reactor without a moderator can get roughly 50x the energy out of a pound of natural uranium than LWR.
belorn 4y ago
Grid stability is the real bad investment. In a free market we should have events where demand exceeds supply and when, and if the state didn't pump large amount of subsidies into grid stability we would see regular power outages. Those that would be hurt most by power outages would then invest into backup generators. Grid stability cost money and power companies do not want to carry that cost. It is a much better investment for them to let society carry those costs and simply produce as much energy when its most cost effective to do so.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Great, except it's more expensive for everyone to run a backup generator than for power companies to overbuild capacity and bundle it into the cost of electricity. Making "society carry the costs" makes everyone poorer so that power utilities can have a thicker profit margin. There's also a related problem: once everyone is already paying the cost to purchase and operate backup power on a regular basis, they're not going to bother paying their power bills. They're just going to disconnect from the grid, because people aren't paying them for "power when its most profitable". They're paying for "power when they need it". Grid stability is the literal job of your power company, arguably moreso than power generation.
  - belorn 4y ago
    It would indeed be a more expensive grid for everyone. However customers tend to pick which ever producer has the cheapest sticker price and a large number will not consider the cost associated with potential blackouts when going into contract. Those situations tend to result in a rush to the bottom if there is no other forces involved in the market. In a market where the government guaranties stability people think they are paying for the kw/h, not power when they need it. It only if they are somehow forced to to consider "power then they need it" that they consider such thing when deciding which power company is cheapest. Which returns back to investments. If consumers will reward companies based on the cost of kw/h, and they will assume that governments take care of balancing the grid, then companies that invest in technology that produce the cheapest kw/h and ignore grid stability. The only way out would be for governments to subsidize less economical ventures but which consider grid stability.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

Right, they're not getting financed because of things like government prohibitions (as in the case here) and unequal consideration making them bad or impossible investments. The propaganda is presumably to get the public to go along with it.

PaulHoule 4y ago

It is more that nuclear hasn't been competitive against natural gas in places that have natural gas since 1980. Betting on renewables + batteries in 2022 is like betting on the fast breeder reactor in 1955. There certainly is going to be development in batteries and other forms of storage in the next decade but we don't know where the minerals will come from, we'll have more grid scale batteries catch on fire, face more challenges siting solar farms because, as a major land use, they could affect endangered species, etc. There will be progress there but remember that decarbonization is not just replacing the current electricity grid but it also involves replacing gas appliances with electric appliances, using electricity for heat in buildings (probably with heat pumps), electric cars (that people will want to charge at night and thus require more grid storage as well as competing for battery materials), replacing industrial uses of energy, synthesizing e-fuels for aviation and other special applications, etc. Nuclear as we know it faces two problems: (1) the steam turbine and heat exchangers of the LWR are enormous such that an LWR would have a hard time competing even if the heat was free, (2) every country other than Russia has built LWRs sporadically and faced terrible project management problems; China is catching up with Russia with their Hualong One (4 completed in the past 2 years, 12 under construction now.) Long term the industry has to get rid of the water to get the temperature up so the powerset can be made more economical and you can use the heat for industrial applications such as thermochemical hydrogen, with the big plus that a reactor without a moderator can get roughly 50x the energy out of a pound of natural uranium than LWR.

belorn 4y ago

Grid stability is the real bad investment. In a free market we should have events where demand exceeds supply and when, and if the state didn't pump large amount of subsidies into grid stability we would see regular power outages. Those that would be hurt most by power outages would then invest into backup generators. Grid stability cost money and power companies do not want to carry that cost. It is a much better investment for them to let society carry those costs and simply produce as much energy when its most cost effective to do so.

kmeisthax 4y ago
Great, except it's more expensive for everyone to run a backup generator than for power companies to overbuild capacity and bundle it into the cost of electricity. Making "society carry the costs" makes everyone poorer so that power utilities can have a thicker profit margin. There's also a related problem: once everyone is already paying the cost to purchase and operate backup power on a regular basis, they're not going to bother paying their power bills. They're just going to disconnect from the grid, because people aren't paying them for "power when its most profitable". They're paying for "power when they need it". Grid stability is the literal job of your power company, arguably moreso than power generation.
- belorn 4y ago
  It would indeed be a more expensive grid for everyone. However customers tend to pick which ever producer has the cheapest sticker price and a large number will not consider the cost associated with potential blackouts when going into contract. Those situations tend to result in a rush to the bottom if there is no other forces involved in the market. In a market where the government guaranties stability people think they are paying for the kw/h, not power when they need it. It only if they are somehow forced to to consider "power then they need it" that they consider such thing when deciding which power company is cheapest. Which returns back to investments. If consumers will reward companies based on the cost of kw/h, and they will assume that governments take care of balancing the grid, then companies that invest in technology that produce the cheapest kw/h and ignore grid stability. The only way out would be for governments to subsidize less economical ventures but which consider grid stability.