6 ms·

I think we're going to end up looking back on the last 50 years as a lost half-century for nuclear energy. It's unequivocally the safest, cleanest, most abundan

I think we're going to end up looking back on the last 50 years as a lost half-century for nuclear energy. It's unequivocally the safest, cleanest, most abundant and zero-carbon energy source we have. With seawater extraction, it qualifies as renewable. Chernobyl was an awful incident no doubt, but the USCEAR report shows that it killed about 4000 people over the full course of time. Meanwhile, the US reliance on coal currently kills 25,000 people per year. The next-worst nuclear accident of all time, Fukushima, killed either 0 or 1 person. The next, Three Mile Island killed exactly zero. We've surely lost millions of lives globally over the last 50 years thanks to sticking to coal when we could have just moved huge quantities of power generation over to nuclear. In terms of cost, the reality is that a renewable + storage grid is still more expensive that nuclear power is today, let alone has been for the last 50 years. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p... [2] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-seawater-extraction-makes-nuclear-power-completely-renewable/?sh=9422efd159ae https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

nl 3y ago
> renewable + storage grid is still more expensive that nuclear power is today This isn't true. Leveled, unsubsidized cost ($/MWh) of: Utility scale solar + storage: $46 - $102 Onshore wind + storage: $42 - $114 Nuclear: $141 - $221 Source: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... (have to download the linked PDF: https://www.lazard.com/media/ruwg1jol/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/ruwg1jol/lazards-lcoeplus-april...)
- zizee 3y ago
  Levelized cost of energy doesn't take into account time effects, so is a poor tool to compare nuclear to intermittent energy sources like solar and wind. If you require a 99.99% guaranteed output at all times of the year, solar and wind require a prohibitive amount of storage, and significant over-provisioning. LCOE does not account for this. This is not to say solar and wind + storage are less economical than nuclear. But LCOE is not a good measure of real costs.
  - wolfram74 3y ago
    4-9's of uptime doesn't match my lived experience in the US, that's one days worth of power outage every 10000 days, or about once every ~30 years. 2-9's is closer to what civilians in the US are used. The over provisioning could be considered more of a feature than a bug, offering new economic periods where the marginal energy cost of production go negative at times.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      > 2-9's is closer to what civilians in the US are used. ??? Like 4 days of downtime per year? I've had about 1.5 hours of outage this year, which was an outlier (much more outage than normal). 3 9's is typical if you have above-ground utilities. If you have underground utilities, you may be doing far better than this...
      - wolfram74 3y ago
        8 hours a year is pretty close to 3-9's, that's fair.
    - zizee 3y ago
      That's fine. 4-9's was just an number I pulled out of my ass, and it wasn't really my point. My point is that when talking about energy sources, LCOE is not a good measure as it doesn't take into account things like reliability over time (whatever your target reliability is). Over-provisioning has a cost. If it is required to achieve characteristics required to do a like-for-like comparison, it should be accounted for. The problem with these Nuclear conversations is that people are pushing their preferred option, always without coming to some sort of agreement on what the requirements are for the power generation option. Without agreeing on what needs to be achieved, everyone talks past each other, arguing with straw-man solutions.
  - nl 3y ago
    In general, long distance transmission across climate zones and across diverse generation types (solar, wind, pumped hydro) along with some limited local storage gives sufficient reliability to meet those requirements. Long distance transmission (1000km+) is surprisingly affordable and widely deployed in eg China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... But note that even with significant over provisioning solar and wind is still cheaper than the cheapest nuclear costs if you over-provision in the low cost, high generation areas (another argument for transmission)
- adev_ 3y ago
  > Utility scale solar + storage: $46 - $102 Oh. A private financial think tank that grossly underestimate the cost of storage when solar/wind investment actually can yield 10% ROI in some country. I am so surprised :rolling-eyes:
  - nl 3y ago
    It's hard to argue they underestimate the costs when they have costed, deployments listed you can check that back up the costs. See page 21 and 22 of the linked PDF. But if you choose not to believe them there are numerous other sources that give the similar numbers. https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Energy-storage-costs https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Energy-st... https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/big-battery-bonanza/ https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/big-battery-bonanz... (2021) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf (2021)
    - adev_ 3y ago
      There is not a single line mentioning the effect it would have on lithium (or vanadium) price and supply if this would be adopted at grid scale. Which of course, like common sense would say (irony), would stay perfectly flat or decreasing when it already struggle to match the supply for EV which is two order of magnitude inferior to what would be needed. Which make me back to my point: Yes, this is oriented garbage done by people that has financial interest in what they are selling.
      - nl 3y ago
        It's worth noting that large scale power projects are telegraphed a lond way in advance and raw material supply can react well to that. There's likely to be a lithium oversupply: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/07/bank-of-america-sees-lithium-surplus-in-2023-as-demand-eases.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/07/bank-of-america-sees-lithium... There's no particular shortage of Lithium in the ground - it's just matching projects to demand. I'm not familiar with vanadium. > oriented garbage done by people that has financial interest in what they are selling They sell consulting services.
- throwawayhdbck 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nl 3y ago
    Forced labor is terrible and should be removed from all supply chains, including fossil fuel mining and uranium mining. I think you might be confusing rare earths with Lithium, which isn't rare and is mostly produced outside Africa. Rare earths are rarely (ha!) used in renewables: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-in-solar-panels/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-...
    - throwawayhdbck 3y ago
      OK great, then we agree that the current administration should enforce the UFLPA and seize most solar panels which are attempting to be imported into the US.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Rare earths aren't used in solar or batteries, but they are used in the steam turbines of a nuclear plant.
phkahler 3y ago
>> It's unequivocally the safest, cleanest, most abundant and zero-carbon energy source we have... Don't dismiss Chernoble as if it's over. Let's not also forget Fukushima. And hey, how about 3 mile island? Nuclear seems to have potential to be a phenomenal gift, but the problem is giving it to humans.
amelius 3y ago
Nuclear power plants still heat up cooling water (like coal plants), causing damage like killing thousands of fish in rivers in France recently. This is a real problem. And also water is getting too hot to cool plants.
- TehCorwiz 3y ago
  How do do you think we harness the heat from a coal fired plant? We boil water! The steam turns a turbine and then the water is cooled in a tower and then expelled. Nuclear replaces the first step, heating the water. The other steps are the same.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Yes, if you insist on comparing to coal plants.
    - skissane 3y ago
      If you need guaranteed power at any time of day, fossil fuels and nuclear can provide that, solar and wind can't – while batteries can smooth over the intermittency, the amount of battery storage required to provide the same power availability as a coal or nuclear plant is cost-prohibitive. So, if we are comparing apples to apples, coal plants vs nuclear is a legitimate comparison, wind and solar aren't. Pumped hydro does better than batteries, but building new dams causes massive ecological damage, and in some parts of the world fresh water is a rather scarce resource. The heated water from a nuclear power plant arguably does less environmental damage overall than a big new dam does.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  Coal and Natural Gas also use plenty of water for cooling purposes, so it's not a problem inherent to Nuclear.
- shakow 3y ago
wpietri 3y ago
I agree coal's terrible, but death isn't the best way to compare. I think a better indicator is insurance cost. Nuclear power gets a major subsidy from the federal government via the Price-Anderson Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... The basic upshot is that nuclear power was not seen as economically viable if operators had to buy insurance to cover actual risk. The federal government (meaning taxpayers) pay everything above the $15 billion mark. Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Going further, between American business culture and American regulatory culture, I have real concerns about our ability to safely and economically operate nuclear plants. Is a nuclear plant really compatible with a reward system that prioritizes short-term cash extraction? Where it isn't, can we really count on regulators to keep things safe without drastically inflating costs? Looking at the recent spate of bank failures leaves me with a lot of questions there.
- cfraenkel 3y ago
  Thats only because coal (and oil/gas) have gotten a bye on their externalized societal costs. If you held them to the same standards, the insurance companies would shut them down tomorrow.
  - wpietri 3y ago
    Sure, and I'm all for removing that subsidy too. Let's start with a carbon tax, for example, and then we can move on to taxes for other pollutants. But having made that mistake with coal is no reason to make it again for nuclear power.
- mlyle 3y ago
  > Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Insuring long tail risk is really, really hard to do and is likely to be very overpriced in the market.
WheatMillington 3y ago
I get very tired of pro nuclear posts that ignore entirely the legitimate downside of nuclear energy. It's the only energy generation which has made an entire city uninhabitable. An please enough with the "this could never happen again with modern reactors" nonsense, as if all possible outcomes can be anticipated.
- Thorondor 3y ago
  Nuclear energy is hardly the only power source that has made an entire city uninhabitable. The Banqiao dam failure flooded 30 cities and affected over 10 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Then there's Centralia, PA, which was turned into a virtual ghost town by a coal mine fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire And we're not even considering the effects of global warming here. Sure, nuclear has risks, but our civilization needs energy and nuclear has proven to be one of the least risky ways to produce it.
- desro 3y ago
  This is a complex issue, no way around it, and I'm not an expert in the field. My thought in response to this is to consider the way coal, oil, copper, uranium, silicon, [...] shape human activity and culture. More specifically, I wonder about: - major oil spills - "mining towns," boom & bust - generally any of the costs associated with resource extraction (copper's mined with diesel, they say) It's complex because it's hard to tell if any of us are making apples-to-apples comparisons in these discussions (broadly). And... I hope we figure it out before our current energy generation makes an entire planet uninhabitable.
- nocoiner 3y ago
  Yeah, well, fossil fuels made the entire city of Houston unlivable.
whatever1 3y ago
Every 10 years there is a 4+ level accident (on the INES scale of 7). And that is with less than 400 plants globally. If we 10x these then we should expect far more frequent accidents. And let’s not get started on the topic of the nuclear waste. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273002/the-biggest-nuclear-accidents-worldwide-rated-by-ines-scale/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273002/the-biggest-nucle...

nl 3y ago

> renewable + storage grid is still more expensive that nuclear power is today This isn't true. Leveled, unsubsidized cost ($/MWh) of: Utility scale solar + storage: $46 - $102 Onshore wind + storage: $42 - $114 Nuclear: $141 - $221 Source: https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost... (have to download the linked PDF: https://www.lazard.com/media/ruwg1jol/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/ruwg1jol/lazards-lcoeplus-april...)

zizee 3y ago
Levelized cost of energy doesn't take into account time effects, so is a poor tool to compare nuclear to intermittent energy sources like solar and wind. If you require a 99.99% guaranteed output at all times of the year, solar and wind require a prohibitive amount of storage, and significant over-provisioning. LCOE does not account for this. This is not to say solar and wind + storage are less economical than nuclear. But LCOE is not a good measure of real costs.
- wolfram74 3y ago
  4-9's of uptime doesn't match my lived experience in the US, that's one days worth of power outage every 10000 days, or about once every ~30 years. 2-9's is closer to what civilians in the US are used. The over provisioning could be considered more of a feature than a bug, offering new economic periods where the marginal energy cost of production go negative at times.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    > 2-9's is closer to what civilians in the US are used. ??? Like 4 days of downtime per year? I've had about 1.5 hours of outage this year, which was an outlier (much more outage than normal). 3 9's is typical if you have above-ground utilities. If you have underground utilities, you may be doing far better than this...
    - wolfram74 3y ago
      8 hours a year is pretty close to 3-9's, that's fair.
  - zizee 3y ago
    That's fine. 4-9's was just an number I pulled out of my ass, and it wasn't really my point. My point is that when talking about energy sources, LCOE is not a good measure as it doesn't take into account things like reliability over time (whatever your target reliability is). Over-provisioning has a cost. If it is required to achieve characteristics required to do a like-for-like comparison, it should be accounted for. The problem with these Nuclear conversations is that people are pushing their preferred option, always without coming to some sort of agreement on what the requirements are for the power generation option. Without agreeing on what needs to be achieved, everyone talks past each other, arguing with straw-man solutions.
- nl 3y ago
  In general, long distance transmission across climate zones and across diverse generation types (solar, wind, pumped hydro) along with some limited local storage gives sufficient reliability to meet those requirements. Long distance transmission (1000km+) is surprisingly affordable and widely deployed in eg China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity... But note that even with significant over provisioning solar and wind is still cheaper than the cheapest nuclear costs if you over-provision in the low cost, high generation areas (another argument for transmission)
adev_ 3y ago
> Utility scale solar + storage: $46 - $102 Oh. A private financial think tank that grossly underestimate the cost of storage when solar/wind investment actually can yield 10% ROI in some country. I am so surprised :rolling-eyes:
- nl 3y ago
  It's hard to argue they underestimate the costs when they have costed, deployments listed you can check that back up the costs. See page 21 and 22 of the linked PDF. But if you choose not to believe them there are numerous other sources that give the similar numbers. https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Energy-storage-costs https://www.irena.org/Energy-Transition/Technology/Energy-st... https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/big-battery-bonanza/ https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/big-battery-bonanz... (2021) https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf (2021)
  - adev_ 3y ago
    There is not a single line mentioning the effect it would have on lithium (or vanadium) price and supply if this would be adopted at grid scale. Which of course, like common sense would say (irony), would stay perfectly flat or decreasing when it already struggle to match the supply for EV which is two order of magnitude inferior to what would be needed. Which make me back to my point: Yes, this is oriented garbage done by people that has financial interest in what they are selling.
    - nl 3y ago
      It's worth noting that large scale power projects are telegraphed a lond way in advance and raw material supply can react well to that. There's likely to be a lithium oversupply: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/07/bank-of-america-sees-lithium-surplus-in-2023-as-demand-eases.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/07/bank-of-america-sees-lithium... There's no particular shortage of Lithium in the ground - it's just matching projects to demand. I'm not familiar with vanadium. > oriented garbage done by people that has financial interest in what they are selling They sell consulting services.
throwawayhdbck 3y ago
[flagged]
- nl 3y ago
  Forced labor is terrible and should be removed from all supply chains, including fossil fuel mining and uranium mining. I think you might be confusing rare earths with Lithium, which isn't rare and is mostly produced outside Africa. Rare earths are rarely (ha!) used in renewables: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-in-solar-panels/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-...
  - throwawayhdbck 3y ago
    OK great, then we agree that the current administration should enforce the UFLPA and seize most solar panels which are attempting to be imported into the US.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Rare earths aren't used in solar or batteries, but they are used in the steam turbines of a nuclear plant.

phkahler 3y ago

>> It's unequivocally the safest, cleanest, most abundant and zero-carbon energy source we have... Don't dismiss Chernoble as if it's over. Let's not also forget Fukushima. And hey, how about 3 mile island? Nuclear seems to have potential to be a phenomenal gift, but the problem is giving it to humans.

amelius 3y ago

Nuclear power plants still heat up cooling water (like coal plants), causing damage like killing thousands of fish in rivers in France recently. This is a real problem. And also water is getting too hot to cool plants.

TehCorwiz 3y ago
How do do you think we harness the heat from a coal fired plant? We boil water! The steam turns a turbine and then the water is cooled in a tower and then expelled. Nuclear replaces the first step, heating the water. The other steps are the same.
- amelius 3y ago
  Yes, if you insist on comparing to coal plants.
  - skissane 3y ago
    If you need guaranteed power at any time of day, fossil fuels and nuclear can provide that, solar and wind can't – while batteries can smooth over the intermittency, the amount of battery storage required to provide the same power availability as a coal or nuclear plant is cost-prohibitive. So, if we are comparing apples to apples, coal plants vs nuclear is a legitimate comparison, wind and solar aren't. Pumped hydro does better than batteries, but building new dams causes massive ecological damage, and in some parts of the world fresh water is a rather scarce resource. The heated water from a nuclear power plant arguably does less environmental damage overall than a big new dam does.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
genocidicbunny 3y ago
Coal and Natural Gas also use plenty of water for cooling purposes, so it's not a problem inherent to Nuclear.
shakow 3y ago

wpietri 3y ago

I agree coal's terrible, but death isn't the best way to compare. I think a better indicator is insurance cost. Nuclear power gets a major subsidy from the federal government via the Price-Anderson Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear... The basic upshot is that nuclear power was not seen as economically viable if operators had to buy insurance to cover actual risk. The federal government (meaning taxpayers) pay everything above the $15 billion mark. Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Going further, between American business culture and American regulatory culture, I have real concerns about our ability to safely and economically operate nuclear plants. Is a nuclear plant really compatible with a reward system that prioritizes short-term cash extraction? Where it isn't, can we really count on regulators to keep things safe without drastically inflating costs? Looking at the recent spate of bank failures leaves me with a lot of questions there.

cfraenkel 3y ago
Thats only because coal (and oil/gas) have gotten a bye on their externalized societal costs. If you held them to the same standards, the insurance companies would shut them down tomorrow.
- wpietri 3y ago
  Sure, and I'm all for removing that subsidy too. Let's start with a carbon tax, for example, and then we can move on to taxes for other pollutants. But having made that mistake with coal is no reason to make it again for nuclear power.
mlyle 3y ago
> Fukushima's cleanup cost is still unknown, but estimates went from $13 billion to $96 billion to $187 billion. If nuclear power is as safe as you say, then they shouldn't need these kinds of subsidies. Insuring long tail risk is really, really hard to do and is likely to be very overpriced in the market.

WheatMillington 3y ago

I get very tired of pro nuclear posts that ignore entirely the legitimate downside of nuclear energy. It's the only energy generation which has made an entire city uninhabitable. An please enough with the "this could never happen again with modern reactors" nonsense, as if all possible outcomes can be anticipated.

Thorondor 3y ago
Nuclear energy is hardly the only power source that has made an entire city uninhabitable. The Banqiao dam failure flooded 30 cities and affected over 10 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure Then there's Centralia, PA, which was turned into a virtual ghost town by a coal mine fire. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire And we're not even considering the effects of global warming here. Sure, nuclear has risks, but our civilization needs energy and nuclear has proven to be one of the least risky ways to produce it.
desro 3y ago
This is a complex issue, no way around it, and I'm not an expert in the field. My thought in response to this is to consider the way coal, oil, copper, uranium, silicon, [...] shape human activity and culture. More specifically, I wonder about: - major oil spills - "mining towns," boom & bust - generally any of the costs associated with resource extraction (copper's mined with diesel, they say) It's complex because it's hard to tell if any of us are making apples-to-apples comparisons in these discussions (broadly). And... I hope we figure it out before our current energy generation makes an entire planet uninhabitable.
nocoiner 3y ago
Yeah, well, fossil fuels made the entire city of Houston unlivable.

whatever1 3y ago

Every 10 years there is a 4+ level accident (on the INES scale of 7). And that is with less than 400 plants globally. If we 10x these then we should expect far more frequent accidents. And let’s not get started on the topic of the nuclear waste. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273002/the-biggest-nuclear-accidents-worldwide-rated-by-ines-scale/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273002/the-biggest-nucle...