3 ms·

Renewables are absolutely not less risk-prone. Per kw generated, nuclear energy is the safest and it's not even kinda close. Renewables also cannot output a ste

Renewables are absolutely not less risk-prone. Per kw generated, nuclear energy is the safest and it's not even kinda close. Renewables also cannot output a steady amount of energy. Maybe there's a massive drought upstream. Maybe there's no wind today. Maybe it's a cloudy day. Nuclear is THE ONLY SOLUTION. We would need such a hilarious, painful amount of renewable energy sources just to survive, let alone thrive. Or, we could just build a few thousand reactors around the world.

tstrimple 4y ago
Risk isn't only measured in physical danger, but also financial risk. Which is exactly why for-profit energy companies aren't investing in nuclear. It's economically the worst possible approach when your concern is profit.
- kulahan 4y ago
  Well no, it's because the upstart cost is insane. I could build a bunch of wind turbines for a few million, or drop BILLIONS into an already-existing reactor design, or even more money into getting a new design approved. If SMRs were more of a thing, a town could build their own power plant for a few million bucks, removing the natural monopoly that exists.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    What about microreactors? > The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requests a pilot program to construct a microreactor for energy resilience by 2027. Also, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office is seeking proposals for a mobile microreactor demonstration > A recent report ... estimates the cost to generate electricity from the first microreactor will be between $0.14/kWh and $0.41/kWh. [...] Future costs are estimated to decrease to between $0.09/kWh and $0.33/kWh. Costs are expected to decrease after demonstration, licensing and initial deployment and will depend on the location and type of owner, whether private or public https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-asked-questions-microreactors/ https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-aske...
  - 7952 4y ago
    You are talking about an amount of money that exceeds the easily available resources of the developer. That is true of nuclear but it is also completely normal in renewables. Projects if all types need financing. That could be a $200k anaerobic digester on a farm or a $7b offshore wind farm. But at every level the investor or bank will need to do due diligence and understand the risk. Different types of project require different levels of expertise to do that. A battery storage site is relatively simple and within the scope of smaller investors. An offshore wind farm might need large banks and energy companies. A nuclear power plant is in a completely different league in terms of expertise required. A bank will find it difficult to even understand the risk.
ben_w 4y ago
"Only" is much too strong a word. Geothermal and tidal are both as reliable as it gets. A global HVDC grid with PV in the deserts will get you 100% renewable all by itself (probably not the cheapest and it would take a decade of current global metal production, but it would work and the resistance losses aren't bad enough to veto that idea). Nuclear is safest though; or at least it was when most PV was rooftop, I don't know if the assumption used in the "deaths per TWh" chart are still valid. Also: > Maybe there's a massive drought upstream. You're not wrong, but when that happens, lots of people will starve because the farms don't get the water that the hydro dam would normally store but in this hypothetical never received in the first place.
bottlepalm 4y ago
Renewables aren't going to fail in a way that makes an entire city uninhabitable for decades. If you want proof that renewables are the solution, look at California's power supply for yesterday. Just 2x the wind/solar/batteries of what's installed now could easily replace all fossil fuel and nuclear. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html

tstrimple 4y ago

Risk isn't only measured in physical danger, but also financial risk. Which is exactly why for-profit energy companies aren't investing in nuclear. It's economically the worst possible approach when your concern is profit.

kulahan 4y ago
Well no, it's because the upstart cost is insane. I could build a bunch of wind turbines for a few million, or drop BILLIONS into an already-existing reactor design, or even more money into getting a new design approved. If SMRs were more of a thing, a town could build their own power plant for a few million bucks, removing the natural monopoly that exists.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  What about microreactors? > The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requests a pilot program to construct a microreactor for energy resilience by 2027. Also, the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office is seeking proposals for a mobile microreactor demonstration > A recent report ... estimates the cost to generate electricity from the first microreactor will be between $0.14/kWh and $0.41/kWh. [...] Future costs are estimated to decrease to between $0.09/kWh and $0.33/kWh. Costs are expected to decrease after demonstration, licensing and initial deployment and will depend on the location and type of owner, whether private or public https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-asked-questions-microreactors/ https://inl.gov/trending-topic/microreactors/frequently-aske...
- 7952 4y ago
  You are talking about an amount of money that exceeds the easily available resources of the developer. That is true of nuclear but it is also completely normal in renewables. Projects if all types need financing. That could be a $200k anaerobic digester on a farm or a $7b offshore wind farm. But at every level the investor or bank will need to do due diligence and understand the risk. Different types of project require different levels of expertise to do that. A battery storage site is relatively simple and within the scope of smaller investors. An offshore wind farm might need large banks and energy companies. A nuclear power plant is in a completely different league in terms of expertise required. A bank will find it difficult to even understand the risk.

ben_w 4y ago

"Only" is much too strong a word. Geothermal and tidal are both as reliable as it gets. A global HVDC grid with PV in the deserts will get you 100% renewable all by itself (probably not the cheapest and it would take a decade of current global metal production, but it would work and the resistance losses aren't bad enough to veto that idea). Nuclear is safest though; or at least it was when most PV was rooftop, I don't know if the assumption used in the "deaths per TWh" chart are still valid. Also: > Maybe there's a massive drought upstream. You're not wrong, but when that happens, lots of people will starve because the farms don't get the water that the hydro dam would normally store but in this hypothetical never received in the first place.

bottlepalm 4y ago

Renewables aren't going to fail in a way that makes an entire city uninhabitable for decades. If you want proof that renewables are the solution, look at California's power supply for yesterday. Just 2x the wind/solar/batteries of what's installed now could easily replace all fossil fuel and nuclear. https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html https://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.html