5 ms·

You should learn about the time value of money. Money today is more valuable than in 50 years so you can't simply ignore the high upfront cost because it makes

You should learn about the time value of money. Money today is more valuable than in 50 years so you can't simply ignore the high upfront cost because it makes nuclear impossible on any open market. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp

acidburnNSA 4y ago
I'm well aware of the time value of money, thanks for that. What I'm suggesting is that there may be societal value in building long-running, small-footprint, 24/7, low-carbon electricity generation that is not fully captured at this time by the dollars-only investor metric of LCOE. In other words, LCOE is from a banker's perspective. What we need is a measure of societal value. We want to measure sustainable prosperity, not simply monetary returns on investment.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  Your hanging everything on "24/7". Take a look at the numbers in the report for firming renewables and contrast them with nuclear.
  - acidburnNSA 4y ago
    Please note that I'm also including long-running (e.g. 60-80 years) and small-footprint (relatively few critical minerals [1] and acres of land needed [2], plus associated reduction in transmission over other options) alongside nuclear's fantastic ability to run 24/7, rain or shine, any season, anywhere (including deep underwater, under ice like at Camp Century, and in outer space like SNAP-10A). None of these benefits of nuclear are even remotely included in LCOE assessments. They're just cast aside as unimportant, which is a big LOL, and why LCOE is no longer seriously considered in cross-technology comparisons by energy experts. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in... [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environmen... (which is a write-up of https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9)
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Low land use requirements are unnecessary. We have an entire planet available for renewable generation, and the footprint needed is still relatively small. If land was at a premium, this would advantage nuclear. It isn’t, so this provides no economic benefit. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-power-how-much-land-must-renewables-use/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-p... https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it-require-to-get-most-of-our-electricity-from-wind-and-solar/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it... https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf (Page 30)
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        Of course physically there is enough land. But NIMBYism is real and gets worse at scale. This is starting to drive costs and timelines up, and will be much worse at world scale. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmills-when-growth-hits-resistance https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmill...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nu... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w Everything the nuclear propaganda arm ever says is a lie.
      - acidburnNSA 4y ago
        New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >In other words, LCOE is from a banker's perspective. What we need is a measure of societal value. well, but we don't have it, I'm personally not sure how we would measure it. How is it measurable? I suppose if it were known how to measure it we would have that measure, and it seems we don't. So I guess, we're stuck with the banker's perspective until someone, perhaps you, provides a reliable alternative. I'm generally not the person who asks "you think you can do better?" when someone complains about a failure but in the case about demanding a measure for sustainable prosperity I think it's reasonable to ask for an attempt.

acidburnNSA 4y ago

I'm well aware of the time value of money, thanks for that. What I'm suggesting is that there may be societal value in building long-running, small-footprint, 24/7, low-carbon electricity generation that is not fully captured at this time by the dollars-only investor metric of LCOE. In other words, LCOE is from a banker's perspective. What we need is a measure of societal value. We want to measure sustainable prosperity, not simply monetary returns on investment.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Your hanging everything on "24/7". Take a look at the numbers in the report for firming renewables and contrast them with nuclear.
- acidburnNSA 4y ago
  Please note that I'm also including long-running (e.g. 60-80 years) and small-footprint (relatively few critical minerals [1] and acres of land needed [2], plus associated reduction in transmission over other options) alongside nuclear's fantastic ability to run 24/7, rain or shine, any season, anywhere (including deep underwater, under ice like at Camp Century, and in outer space like SNAP-10A). None of these benefits of nuclear are even remotely included in LCOE assessments. They're just cast aside as unimportant, which is a big LOL, and why LCOE is no longer seriously considered in cross-technology comparisons by energy experts. [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions/mineral-requirements-for-clean-energy-transitions https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in... [2] https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environment-systematic-survey.html https://techxplore.com/news/2023-04-nuclear-power-environmen... (which is a write-up of https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-25341-9)
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Low land use requirements are unnecessary. We have an entire planet available for renewable generation, and the footprint needed is still relatively small. If land was at a premium, this would advantage nuclear. It isn’t, so this provides no economic benefit. https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-power-how-much-land-must-renewables-use/ https://www.power-technology.com/features/making-space-for-p... https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it-require-to-get-most-of-our-electricity-from-wind-and-solar/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/steve-clemmer/how-much-land-would-it... https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/Tesla-Master-Plan-Part-3.pdf (Page 30)
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      Of course physically there is enough land. But NIMBYism is real and gets worse at scale. This is starting to drive costs and timelines up, and will be much worse at world scale. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmills-when-growth-hits-resistance https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/fighting-windmill...
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-of-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/272139/age-distribution-... https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nuclear-reactors-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/517060/average-age-of-nu... https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva... https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://minedocs.com/20/Inkai_Operation_TR_12312016.pdf https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w https://opennem.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=1y&interval=1w Everything the nuclear propaganda arm ever says is a lie.
    - acidburnNSA 4y ago
      New reactors are widely expected last longer than old ones because of what we've learned from the experience. Materials have advanced. Welding is better understood. Stress corrosion cracking can be managed. Your links are backward looking. I'm talking about the future. Many license extensions out to 60 years have been made, and many to 80 are expected. Youre doing the equivalent of looking at 1960s era solar tech and saying people claiming it can improve are liars.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>In other words, LCOE is from a banker's perspective. What we need is a measure of societal value. well, but we don't have it, I'm personally not sure how we would measure it. How is it measurable? I suppose if it were known how to measure it we would have that measure, and it seems we don't. So I guess, we're stuck with the banker's perspective until someone, perhaps you, provides a reliable alternative. I'm generally not the person who asks "you think you can do better?" when someone complains about a failure but in the case about demanding a measure for sustainable prosperity I think it's reasonable to ask for an attempt.