3 ms·

> The data is clear, nuclear is the safest, cleanest, lowest-carbon and most reliable form of energy we have. By your own citation, solar is safer. I realize g

> The data is clear, nuclear is the safest, cleanest, lowest-carbon and most reliable form of energy we have. By your own citation, solar is safer. I realize graphs can be tricky to read, but come on. The fact that nuclear requires so much concrete also means solar and wind use less carbon. And you're missing a data point: nuclear is also the most expensive form of energy ever conceived.

arcticbull 3y ago
> By your own citation, solar is safer. I realize graphs can be tricky to read, but come on. I would consider them equally safe, and both the safest form of energy. If you really want to get technical this graph excludes rooftop solar which has about 20X the fatality rate of industrial solar in terms of deaths per TWh. [2] But I don't really care, they're equally the safest form of energy. > The fact that nuclear requires so much concrete also means solar and wind use less carbon. This is factored into the calculations I linked and no, they don't. > And you're missing a data point: nuclear is also the most expensive form of energy ever conceived. Again, not accurate. Solar and wind are bursty and sometimes just drop to zero. Solar at night or when it's cloudy, and wind when it's not windy. If you actually want a 100% renewable grid you need storage. And adding this storage makes wind + solar + storage combo significantly more expensive than nuclear. In fact even a 90-something% renewable grid with storage is more expensive than nuclear. [1] Also there's nothing intrinsically expensive about nuclear, you put the spicy rocks in the water and it gets hot. The cost is all up-front in plant construction and as the DOE's head of the loans program Jigar Shah says, there's an easy path to reducing that cost: stop building one-off plants in each location, design cookie cutter plants and drop them down where it makes sense. The actual cost of uranium input into a nuclear plant is $0.005/kWh. I have nothing against renewables, why would I? They'll be part of the solution. But let's at least have an honest conversation about the facts. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-cost-for-a-renewable-grid https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-... [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...
- Maursault 3y ago
  > > And you're missing a data point: nuclear is also the most expensive form of energy ever conceived. > Again, not accurate. But it is. The generation of electricity through nuclear power plants in the United States cost 29.13 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour in 2021.[1] > Also there's nothing intrinsically expensive about nuclear, Oh, but there certainly is. The historically high cost of nuclear power electricity is largely due to capital costs (that you would be paying for whether the plants produced electricity or not), and because plants in the US have often not been designed to ramp up and down easily, they tend to be operated continuously. It takes $10B before the first watt of electricity is generated. Uranium costs a fortune. Waste storage is astoundingly expensive due to amount of time it must be stored, not to mention the cost of security for that storage. Meanwhile, a typical solar system in the U.S. can produce electricity at the cost of $0.06 to $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.[2] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-e... [2] https://www.electricrate.com/solar-energy/price-per-kwh/ https://www.electricrate.com/solar-energy/price-per-kwh/
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Schroedingersat 3y ago
  Cool. So when the nuclear industry offers a 40 year contract for all the energy a 1GW nuclear plant produces with no liability cap, fully funded decomissioning insured against bankruptcy, and fully funded cleanup of mines payable in full after it has been operating for 1 year at >92% CF for $3 billion we'll know you're telling the truth about it costing <$30/MWh. Until then it's just lies and whining to demand handouts.

arcticbull 3y ago

> By your own citation, solar is safer. I realize graphs can be tricky to read, but come on. I would consider them equally safe, and both the safest form of energy. If you really want to get technical this graph excludes rooftop solar which has about 20X the fatality rate of industrial solar in terms of deaths per TWh. [2] But I don't really care, they're equally the safest form of energy. > The fact that nuclear requires so much concrete also means solar and wind use less carbon. This is factored into the calculations I linked and no, they don't. > And you're missing a data point: nuclear is also the most expensive form of energy ever conceived. Again, not accurate. Solar and wind are bursty and sometimes just drop to zero. Solar at night or when it's cloudy, and wind when it's not windy. If you actually want a 100% renewable grid you need storage. And adding this storage makes wind + solar + storage combo significantly more expensive than nuclear. In fact even a 90-something% renewable grid with storage is more expensive than nuclear. [1] Also there's nothing intrinsically expensive about nuclear, you put the spicy rocks in the water and it gets hot. The cost is all up-front in plant construction and as the DOE's head of the loans program Jigar Shah says, there's an easy path to reducing that cost: stop building one-off plants in each location, design cookie cutter plants and drop them down where it makes sense. The actual cost of uranium input into a nuclear plant is $0.005/kWh. I have nothing against renewables, why would I? They'll be part of the solution. But let's at least have an honest conversation about the facts. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-cost-for-a-renewable-grid https://spectrum.ieee.org/what-energy-storage-would-have-to-... [2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all...

Maursault 3y ago
> > And you're missing a data point: nuclear is also the most expensive form of energy ever conceived. > Again, not accurate. But it is. The generation of electricity through nuclear power plants in the United States cost 29.13 U.S. dollars per megawatt-hour in 2021.[1] > Also there's nothing intrinsically expensive about nuclear, Oh, but there certainly is. The historically high cost of nuclear power electricity is largely due to capital costs (that you would be paying for whether the plants produced electricity or not), and because plants in the US have often not been designed to ramp up and down easily, they tend to be operated continuously. It takes $10B before the first watt of electricity is generated. Uranium costs a fortune. Waste storage is astoundingly expensive due to amount of time it must be stored, not to mention the cost of security for that storage. Meanwhile, a typical solar system in the U.S. can produce electricity at the cost of $0.06 to $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.[2] [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-e... [2] https://www.electricrate.com/solar-energy/price-per-kwh/ https://www.electricrate.com/solar-energy/price-per-kwh/
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Schroedingersat 3y ago
Cool. So when the nuclear industry offers a 40 year contract for all the energy a 1GW nuclear plant produces with no liability cap, fully funded decomissioning insured against bankruptcy, and fully funded cleanup of mines payable in full after it has been operating for 1 year at >92% CF for $3 billion we'll know you're telling the truth about it costing <$30/MWh. Until then it's just lies and whining to demand handouts.