3 ms·

Just to be clear, the power from a nuclear reactor is very different than that of a wind or solar farm. Vogtle is 2GW of baseload power, and is comparable to si

by _hypx 4y ago

Just to be clear, the power from a nuclear reactor is very different than that of a wind or solar farm. Vogtle is 2GW of baseload power, and is comparable to significantly larger amount of renewable energy. It is also the result of decades of low investment into nuclear until expertise has retired and now we struggle to find the right people to build new reactors. The type of problems that are reported at nuclear power plants are basically ignored at other plants. Most power plants don't have any real redundancy, nevermind the insane levels of redundancy requires at nuclear power plants. The plant would have easily ran with those issues, but we just refuse to take even the smallest risk.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Just to be clear, the power from a nuclear reactor is very different than that of a wind or solar farm. Yes. Forced outages are typically complete rather than partial. They're heavily correlated and last months. So storage or backup needs to be many weeks to make it reliable at even the 95% level. Much of the generation happens at night when industries have to assign expensive graveyard shifts to utilize it effectively. It's also so expensive that increasing coverage for a set power target by overprovision is prohibitive. > It is also the result of decades of low investment into nuclear until expertise has retired and now we struggle to find the right people to build new reactors This must have been why reactors completed in 1979 were on average so much more expensive than the ones finished before. And why prices have gone up almost every time the same design is built again. > The plant would have easily ran with those issues, but we just refuse to take even the smallest risk. I love this line where you crow about how safe it is out of one side of your mouth, then whine about how if it didn't have to be safe, it'd be cheap. Let's replace the 'excessive' regulatory requirements with removing the liability cap and see who lines up to provide insurance on an entire city. Also the residents around kadapa or husab would love it if they could have some of this safety you're talking about.
- _hypx 4y ago
  That has a lot to do with how old many nuclear reactors are and that we have zero spare capacity much of time. People who are anti-nuclear have failed to realize how much of the problems are caused by rampant anti-nuclearism. Again, we are constantly adding more and more requirements to nuclear reactors. Everything must have quadruple redundancy these days. You forget that nuclear is the safest or form of energy that we have. The number of deaths from nuclear energy is remarkably small. Sure, we can still insist on insane levels of safety, but we should not then turn around and demonize the end result. If we insist on these regulations, then we should also insist that people be aware of what is driving these costs, and make it a positive thing.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > That has a lot to do with how old many nuclear reactors are and that we have zero spare capacity much of time. People who are anti-nuclear have failed to realize how much of the problems are caused by rampant anti-nuclearism. When they were new and before the regulations they were on less than half the time. Another lie > You forget that nuclear is the safest or form of energy that we have. The number of deaths from nuclear energy is remarkably small. Sure, we can still insist on insane levels of safety, but we should not then turn around and demonize the end result. If we insist on these regulations, then we should also insist that people be aware of what is driving these costs, and make it a positive thing. There it is. Right on cue, after already being calledout for it. You're demanding free insurance. The insurer gets to set the policy on likelihood to destroy a city. Stop crying or findyour own insurance. Also this is a myth. Solar is now the safest by a factor of two. Then wind. You continue to lie about everything. If you include all the deaths from mining waste dumping and lung cancer of uranium miners, eye witness reports of chernobyl liquidators rather than official ussr reports, and the hundreds of unremediated sites that are less than 1% of their final age, then hydro beats it too.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      I see that you're returned to being a troll. Goodbye.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Calling out your lies isn't trolling.

by _hypx 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Just to be clear, the power from a nuclear reactor is very different than that of a wind or solar farm. Yes. Forced outages are typically complete rather than partial. They're heavily correlated and last months. So storage or backup needs to be many weeks to make it reliable at even the 95% level. Much of the generation happens at night when industries have to assign expensive graveyard shifts to utilize it effectively. It's also so expensive that increasing coverage for a set power target by overprovision is prohibitive. > It is also the result of decades of low investment into nuclear until expertise has retired and now we struggle to find the right people to build new reactors This must have been why reactors completed in 1979 were on average so much more expensive than the ones finished before. And why prices have gone up almost every time the same design is built again. > The plant would have easily ran with those issues, but we just refuse to take even the smallest risk. I love this line where you crow about how safe it is out of one side of your mouth, then whine about how if it didn't have to be safe, it'd be cheap. Let's replace the 'excessive' regulatory requirements with removing the liability cap and see who lines up to provide insurance on an entire city. Also the residents around kadapa or husab would love it if they could have some of this safety you're talking about.

_hypx 4y ago
That has a lot to do with how old many nuclear reactors are and that we have zero spare capacity much of time. People who are anti-nuclear have failed to realize how much of the problems are caused by rampant anti-nuclearism. Again, we are constantly adding more and more requirements to nuclear reactors. Everything must have quadruple redundancy these days. You forget that nuclear is the safest or form of energy that we have. The number of deaths from nuclear energy is remarkably small. Sure, we can still insist on insane levels of safety, but we should not then turn around and demonize the end result. If we insist on these regulations, then we should also insist that people be aware of what is driving these costs, and make it a positive thing.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > That has a lot to do with how old many nuclear reactors are and that we have zero spare capacity much of time. People who are anti-nuclear have failed to realize how much of the problems are caused by rampant anti-nuclearism. When they were new and before the regulations they were on less than half the time. Another lie > You forget that nuclear is the safest or form of energy that we have. The number of deaths from nuclear energy is remarkably small. Sure, we can still insist on insane levels of safety, but we should not then turn around and demonize the end result. If we insist on these regulations, then we should also insist that people be aware of what is driving these costs, and make it a positive thing. There it is. Right on cue, after already being calledout for it. You're demanding free insurance. The insurer gets to set the policy on likelihood to destroy a city. Stop crying or findyour own insurance. Also this is a myth. Solar is now the safest by a factor of two. Then wind. You continue to lie about everything. If you include all the deaths from mining waste dumping and lung cancer of uranium miners, eye witness reports of chernobyl liquidators rather than official ussr reports, and the hundreds of unremediated sites that are less than 1% of their final age, then hydro beats it too.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    I see that you're returned to being a troll. Goodbye.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Calling out your lies isn't trolling.