4 ms·

> Er, no it is the point. We've always been using the safety mechanisms you specified, so it's not going to affect costs because those safety features have alwa

> Er, no it is the point. We've always been using the safety mechanisms you specified, so it's not going to affect costs because those safety features have always been there. Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. This is something much rarer with say, solar or wind because there's less that can go wrong, less backups needed, and breakage is much more acceptable. > We make alternators for all kinds of products, so doubling the production of wind turbines doesn't remotely double the market for alternators because wind turbines are only a small segment of the market for alternators. But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices. > People want solutions right now, and intermittent sources are not a solution until cheap and scalable energy storage is invented. I don't think you're still quite getting what I'm getting at. Consideration on the level you speak of doesn't exist. Nobody is in charge of the whole system, so a full functional system doesn't matter. People will build intermittent sources because they're cheap to build, and because intermittency isn't the provider's problem. Then things break, and people will seek solutions. There will be a rush and various patchwork solutions being implemented in a panic. You're thinking like a sane person, trying to transition to a different stable system and ensuring it will work properly from the start. I think that won't be the case. We will keep pushing until things break, everyone will blame everyone else, and we'll need to fix things in a hurry.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. And again, we already added that safety system. There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. > But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices. Exactly: production is already at scale so making a large order for a bunch of alternators for wind turbines isn't going to lead to further saving because it's a drop in the total market for alternators. As a contrast to nuclear power components - where nuclear plants are the only market - so a tenfold increase in the production of nuclear plants leads to a tenfold increase in the production of pressure vessels. > People will build intermittent sources because they're cheap to build, and because intermittency isn't the provider's problem. Then things break, and people will seek solutions. There will be a rush and various patchwork solutions being implemented in a panic. Correct, and the solution to intermittency that we've found is to burn fossil fuels. The battery storage facilities being provisioned are nowhere near large enough to be significant. Hydroelectric storage requires specific geographic features, and isn't widely available. You're right: when we have shortages of electricity people will implement solutions. And the solution grid operators have found to the intermittency problem is to continue burning fossil fuels.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems. Eg, Fukushima wasn't just "account for tsunamis", which is a local problem. One resulting requirement is "Ensure that the required parts to keep the reactor said can be made available and brought in by helicopter within 24 hours even if the terrain is impassable". So that added a nigh universal requirement to store various replacement parts and to ensure some way to deliver water, as well as the availability of helicopters to bring that in. That increases the price of every nuclear plant out there. Maybe not by a huge amount, but it does. And renewables escape that because nobody cares if something knocks down a wind turbine, so long it doesn't fall on somebody's head. > As a contrast to nuclear power components - where nuclear plants are the only market - so a tenfold increase in the production of nuclear plants leads to a tenfold increase in the production of pressure vessels. 10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators. > Correct, and the solution to intermittency that we've found is to burn fossil fuels. Fair, but again backs up my view that nuclear isn't going to happen.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems. And for the third time, the safety systems that would have prevented Chernobyl are already present in western reactors: * Western reactors have secondary containment * Western reactors also use dedicated control and moderator rods We don't need to spend the money to invent more safety systems if we already have them. > 10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators. It's not a question of automation, it's more of a factor of institutional knowledge and overhead cost of design. When building something unique like a steam generator a new manufacturer typically builds a broken first model and has to iterate a couple times before nailing down the manufacturing process. That overhead cost can be amortized over a larger production run.

Manuel_D 4y ago

> Again, the point is a generic one. When we find a problem with nuclear, we add extra safety systems. Those cost money. And again, we already added that safety system. There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. > But it does mean there's factories already pumping them out, plentiful production capacity, competition, and cheap prices. Exactly: production is already at scale so making a large order for a bunch of alternators for wind turbines isn't going to lead to further saving because it's a drop in the total market for alternators. As a contrast to nuclear power components - where nuclear plants are the only market - so a tenfold increase in the production of nuclear plants leads to a tenfold increase in the production of pressure vessels. > People will build intermittent sources because they're cheap to build, and because intermittency isn't the provider's problem. Then things break, and people will seek solutions. There will be a rush and various patchwork solutions being implemented in a panic. Correct, and the solution to intermittency that we've found is to burn fossil fuels. The battery storage facilities being provisioned are nowhere near large enough to be significant. Hydroelectric storage requires specific geographic features, and isn't widely available. You're right: when we have shortages of electricity people will implement solutions. And the solution grid operators have found to the intermittency problem is to continue burning fossil fuels.

dale_glass 4y ago
> There is no "extra safety systems" because it's already there. No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems. Eg, Fukushima wasn't just "account for tsunamis", which is a local problem. One resulting requirement is "Ensure that the required parts to keep the reactor said can be made available and brought in by helicopter within 24 hours even if the terrain is impassable". So that added a nigh universal requirement to store various replacement parts and to ensure some way to deliver water, as well as the availability of helicopters to bring that in. That increases the price of every nuclear plant out there. Maybe not by a huge amount, but it does. And renewables escape that because nobody cares if something knocks down a wind turbine, so long it doesn't fall on somebody's head. > As a contrast to nuclear power components - where nuclear plants are the only market - so a tenfold increase in the production of nuclear plants leads to a tenfold increase in the production of pressure vessels. 10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators. > Correct, and the solution to intermittency that we've found is to burn fossil fuels. Fair, but again backs up my view that nuclear isn't going to happen.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > No. Every time we have an accident we think of what could have prevented it, and invent more safety systems. And for the third time, the safety systems that would have prevented Chernobyl are already present in western reactors: * Western reactors have secondary containment * Western reactors also use dedicated control and moderator rods We don't need to spend the money to invent more safety systems if we already have them. > 10X of approximately nothing might still not be enough to bother automating anything, and you'd have to convince those companies that demand is going to stay and make the investment worthwhile. Meanwhile we're not about to stop needing gearboxes and generators. It's not a question of automation, it's more of a factor of institutional knowledge and overhead cost of design. When building something unique like a steam generator a new manufacturer typically builds a broken first model and has to iterate a couple times before nailing down the manufacturing process. That overhead cost can be amortized over a larger production run.