7 ms·

Nuclear definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy future. This article briefly alludes to its "social and political" challenges, but that undersells ho

by amw 4y ago

Nuclear definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy future. This article briefly alludes to its "social and political" challenges, but that undersells how nuclear is subject to more impact study per watt than any fossil fuel plant ever has. But the basis of that is simple economics: an economy dominated by fossil fuels (with an increasing share coming from "green" tech that will still always need a reliable base load that fossil fuels will be happy to provide) will spend large amounts of effort minimizing the benefits of a tech whose RoI to the owner is measured over tens of decades.

dale_glass 4y ago
> Nuclear definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy future. Why? I think nuclear is effectively obsolete at this point. It had a potential once upon a time, but no longer because the world just moved on, like happened with say steam powered trains. Nuclear is really ill-fitting tech to the modern age. Say, who's going to build it? Investors? But it has a terrible time making a profit. It's incredibly expensive to build, and has a very long payoff time. If you're into money, then you don't like a business plan that requires a loan of many billions and that might pay off in decades, if renewables don't ruin the business model. If you're a banker you probably don't like that either. Okay, let's say it's a political project then, we'll pay for it with taxes. But that's not great either because construction times are long. As a politician if you throw your effort behind nuclear, your chances are slim to see it being turned on while you retain your position. The chances of seeing that plan start to profit are even slimmer. The chances of a successor sabotaging your legacy are pretty big. So your incentives as a politician to get behind nuclear aren't great. Let's say the politicians are onboard anyway. Even then, it's tricky. Governments are sovereign. Even if the current government promised that this plant is guaranteed to sell its power for $X and therefore is guaranteed a profit... guess what, if in the future it turns out that solar is everywhere and your power costs 10X than anyone else's, people will likely get tired of paying for that, and might as well break the promise some other party made 15 years ago, and there goes your profit.
- lettergram 4y ago
  Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. Further, I can imagine an insurance broker (similar to the FDIC) collaborating across areas of nuclear was an option. Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc. example of real situation: contractor is supposed to weld frame, the union guy is supposed to weld pipes, there are different inspectors for each. Pipe inspector comes Wednesday, frame inspector comes Thursday. Frame must be inspected before pipe is in. Contractor welds pipe and frame Tuesday because union guy is out sick. Pipe inspector approves on Wednesday. Pipe welder returns Thursday, frame inspector comes and pipe welder complains, take it out. Next week, the pipe welder drinks all week. Frame welder welds frame, inspection complete and passes. Following week pipe welder completes weld for pipe. But inspector was out sick. Further sections must be put on hold until inspected. Following week pipe inspector inspects and approve. At this point the project is 1 month behind where it could have been due to union rules (enforced by law) & legal requirements of inspection. What really put the nail in the coffin, was (I believe it was GE) was caught faking photos of pipes. There was then a requirement to remove and replace all the piping for a project(s) - at cost. Which was a hell of a lot of money and regulations were then dramatically increased. Haven’t built since.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. Okay, and if people are selling wind or solar at 30% of the price, why would anyone pay to the nuclear plant? > Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc. Well, tough shit, that's how things work when you're dealing with dangerous stuff. I fully believe nuclear can be a safe technology. But it's only safe when everything is done by the rules, and there are inspectors for everything.

by amw 4y ago

dale_glass 4y ago

> Nuclear definitely needs to be a larger part of our energy future. Why? I think nuclear is effectively obsolete at this point. It had a potential once upon a time, but no longer because the world just moved on, like happened with say steam powered trains. Nuclear is really ill-fitting tech to the modern age. Say, who's going to build it? Investors? But it has a terrible time making a profit. It's incredibly expensive to build, and has a very long payoff time. If you're into money, then you don't like a business plan that requires a loan of many billions and that might pay off in decades, if renewables don't ruin the business model. If you're a banker you probably don't like that either. Okay, let's say it's a political project then, we'll pay for it with taxes. But that's not great either because construction times are long. As a politician if you throw your effort behind nuclear, your chances are slim to see it being turned on while you retain your position. The chances of seeing that plan start to profit are even slimmer. The chances of a successor sabotaging your legacy are pretty big. So your incentives as a politician to get behind nuclear aren't great. Let's say the politicians are onboard anyway. Even then, it's tricky. Governments are sovereign. Even if the current government promised that this plant is guaranteed to sell its power for $X and therefore is guaranteed a profit... guess what, if in the future it turns out that solar is everywhere and your power costs 10X than anyone else's, people will likely get tired of paying for that, and might as well break the promise some other party made 15 years ago, and there goes your profit.

lettergram 4y ago
Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. Further, I can imagine an insurance broker (similar to the FDIC) collaborating across areas of nuclear was an option. Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc. example of real situation: contractor is supposed to weld frame, the union guy is supposed to weld pipes, there are different inspectors for each. Pipe inspector comes Wednesday, frame inspector comes Thursday. Frame must be inspected before pipe is in. Contractor welds pipe and frame Tuesday because union guy is out sick. Pipe inspector approves on Wednesday. Pipe welder returns Thursday, frame inspector comes and pipe welder complains, take it out. Next week, the pipe welder drinks all week. Frame welder welds frame, inspection complete and passes. Following week pipe welder completes weld for pipe. But inspector was out sick. Further sections must be put on hold until inspected. Following week pipe inspector inspects and approve. At this point the project is 1 month behind where it could have been due to union rules (enforced by law) & legal requirements of inspection. What really put the nail in the coffin, was (I believe it was GE) was caught faking photos of pipes. There was then a requirement to remove and replace all the piping for a project(s) - at cost. Which was a hell of a lot of money and regulations were then dramatically increased. Haven’t built since.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. Okay, and if people are selling wind or solar at 30% of the price, why would anyone pay to the nuclear plant? > Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc. Well, tough shit, that's how things work when you're dealing with dangerous stuff. I fully believe nuclear can be a safe technology. But it's only safe when everything is done by the rules, and there are inspectors for everything.