5 ms·
Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. But loads of analysis have been
by uoaei 4y ago
Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. But loads of analysis have been done on the financials of different energy generation methods and shows very clearly that, except for those contracted to build and maintain the thing, no one sees a real benefit. It simply doesn't pan out to plan and build new nuclear reactors today, considering what we could do with that money (solar, wind) over the 10 years it takes from groundbreaking to first day online for nuclear facilities.
- j0hnyl 4y agoDo you have any good source of reading on this? Most of my layman googling seems to suggest otherwise.
- legitster 4y agoThe financials don't live in a vacuum though. Nuclear is only so expensive because there is a lack of supply chain on reactors and absurd regulations. The average nuclear reactor is over 40 years old(!) and well past due for replacement. So the cost is skewed by unrealistic maintenance demand on reactors that are 3 generations old because we can't politically replace them with anything other than a Natural Gas plant. Meanwhile, renewables enjoy fast-tracking and subsidies. But keep in mind renewables currently only benefit places that are either windy or sunny. There are going to be diminishing returns as they fill up our power diet. We are still going to need power supplies that can keep New York powered in the winter. Or power that can be turned on/off to meet seasonal demand. So unless we want to keep natural gas and coal plants around indefinitely, we are going to need some amount of nuclear power in the mix.
- refuse 4y agoA lot of people say that new reactor designs will be a game changer but I can't help but wonder how much more benefit they'll provide over plain old solar and wind with hydrogen for storage and transport. After the Ukraine invasion, I think it's also worth considering future political instability in reactor permitting and design. I believe the molten salt reactors negate a lot of the problems we've had to consider with the Zaporozhye nuclear plant being in a war zone, but I'm not sure it comes out to something much better than solar and wind. The micro reactors sound interesting though.
- legitster 4y agoIf anything, the Ukraine invasion changed my opinion the other way. Germany had the largest investment in solar and wind anywhere in the world. But their dirty secret was that they were dependent on malicious petrostates to keep the lights on this whole time. Meanwhile, the Nordics and France that when all-in on nuclear are enjoying relative energy independence.
- uoaei 4y agoSo you have a problem with cronyism and corruption, not with solar and wind.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoSo how are those sanctions on rosatom going then? Sooo independent.
- luckylion 4y ago> Virtually no one who is critical of nuclear thinks that "it's scary" is the best, or even a good, reason for not having nuclear. That's 99.9% of Germany's anti-nuclear movement. The "it's just not economical" is a super recent addition (last 3 years, I'd say) to the public debate, and it feels very much tacked on. If anyone discovered a method to bring down cost, most of those who are against nuclear energy wouldn't change their mind, because that's not an actual concern to them.
- legitster 4y agoTo further add to this, most arguments against the economics of nuclear are kind of dumb and circular. "We shouldn't bother making nuclear cheaper, it's too expensive!" Meanwhile, we are just supposed to take for granted that unforeseen technology will make energy storage and transport cheaper.
- concordDance 4y agoThats because the price is 5x higher (inflation and power output adjusted) than the 70s plants. Due entirely to overregulation.