4 ms·

And the point is wrong if you have to wait 15 years and go bankrupt for excellent baseload (and whether the whole baseload thing makes sense at all is also a ve

by tpm 4y ago

And the point is wrong if you have to wait 15 years and go bankrupt for excellent baseload (and whether the whole baseload thing makes sense at all is also a very good question) that may or may not work depending on water availability. Especially if you have alternatives, and it looks like we could build a lot of renewables and storage combined with say green hydrogen or ammonia. With lower risk and gradually. And not spend the next 100 years and countless billions decommisioning them.

robertlagrant 4y ago
What you're saying seems to confuse three things: - the econonmic situation right now - a possible future where storage is better - the general case that's being stated, which is that nuclear is currently the best base load tech, unless you like burning gas. I'm only talking about the latter.
- tpm 4y ago
  But then it looks like it is the best base load tech, until someone actually tries to build it. Then it becomes a huge commitment and a burden for >100 years (20y planning, permissions, building + 60y lifetime + ???y decommissioning and waste management). What if storage (or hydrogen/ammonia storage and peakers) is already good enough, but we are not building it because we are blinded by the empty promises of nuclear utopia? I guess we will see in a few years as the first efforts of this type go online.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    I can't understand the mindset that says nuclear has been some sort of overwhelming force in power generation. It's been the most tentatively adopted generation tech in history; we've ignored the guaranteed radiation of coal mining while we've had endless worry about nuclear power. We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. Which is fine, but it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables.
    - tpm 4y ago
      > it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables. Depends on your social circles or information sources I guess. What I get from mine (including HN) is that nuclear power is the correct technocratic solution to the world's problems. It has no downsides. Meanwhile renewables are ugly and not worth the investment. And I am only exaggerating a little. > We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. I don't understand this, and also don't agree with it. The yearly new photovoltaic installed capacity is reaching hundreds of GWp. Even with a load factor of 15% it's adding much more capacity than we ever could with current nuclear technologies. And also much cheaper. The typically conservative IEA predicts new 600 GWp/year in 2030, but already in 2022 the world has added 268 GWp (according to BNEF) and will hit over 300 this year. Yes, the storage and smarter grids need attention. But overall renewables are absolutely worth the money and time they get.

by tpm 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago

What you're saying seems to confuse three things: - the econonmic situation right now - a possible future where storage is better - the general case that's being stated, which is that nuclear is currently the best base load tech, unless you like burning gas. I'm only talking about the latter.

tpm 4y ago
But then it looks like it is the best base load tech, until someone actually tries to build it. Then it becomes a huge commitment and a burden for >100 years (20y planning, permissions, building + 60y lifetime + ???y decommissioning and waste management). What if storage (or hydrogen/ammonia storage and peakers) is already good enough, but we are not building it because we are blinded by the empty promises of nuclear utopia? I guess we will see in a few years as the first efforts of this type go online.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  I can't understand the mindset that says nuclear has been some sort of overwhelming force in power generation. It's been the most tentatively adopted generation tech in history; we've ignored the guaranteed radiation of coal mining while we've had endless worry about nuclear power. We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. Which is fine, but it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables.
  - tpm 4y ago
    > it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables. Depends on your social circles or information sources I guess. What I get from mine (including HN) is that nuclear power is the correct technocratic solution to the world's problems. It has no downsides. Meanwhile renewables are ugly and not worth the investment. And I am only exaggerating a little. > We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. I don't understand this, and also don't agree with it. The yearly new photovoltaic installed capacity is reaching hundreds of GWp. Even with a load factor of 15% it's adding much more capacity than we ever could with current nuclear technologies. And also much cheaper. The typically conservative IEA predicts new 600 GWp/year in 2030, but already in 2022 the world has added 268 GWp (according to BNEF) and will hit over 300 this year. Yes, the storage and smarter grids need attention. But overall renewables are absolutely worth the money and time they get.