4 ms·

So to power every home in the USA would roughly cost 3 trillion at these prices. if they reused the same teams and designs maybe they could get it somewhat chea

by ryan93 3y ago

So to power every home in the USA would roughly cost 3 trillion at these prices. if they reused the same teams and designs maybe they could get it somewhat cheaper. plus we have increasing renewable plus existing hydro and nuclear. for the price of a year or two of national debt we could go full renewable in this country.

justrealist 3y ago
So we could decarbonize the entire US power grid for what we spent on COVID relief/stimulus? That seems like a good deal, even without economies of scale...
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  Not just decarbonize, but become a major fossil fuel exporter and be all smug about like a certain Nordic country…
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > become a major fossil fuel exporter Wouldn't doing that undo a lot of the gains from this? If we export fossil fuels instead of burning them, we aren't really decarbonizing. We're just having the carbonization take place somewhere else.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      It offsets significant carbon production elsewhere (especially if we only export natgas), and defunds from some of the worst governments on earth.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > It offsets significant carbon production elsewhere Does it? Or does it simply increase the amount of fossil fuels being used elsewhere? > defunds from some of the worst governments on earth. That has nothing to do with decarbonization, though.
    - slt2021 3y ago
      you are right, oil extraction is literally producing carbon (which is then processed and burned at later stage somewhere else) so we need to separate: carbon production and carbon emissions. a lot of so called decarbonized industries are decarbonized simply because they outsourced carbon intensive parts to third world, but carbon is still being produced and emitted. I think this is why some people are supporting De-Growth movement, that just by reducing consumption of nonessential stuff, we would decrease carbon production and emissions globally
- coldpie 3y ago
  Yup. The Georgia plant seems expensive until you remember it cost half of what Twitter did.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    $30B is more than half of $44B.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    "Cheaper than twitter" is a canonical example of damning with faint praise.
aschearer 3y ago
What if climage change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[1] [1]: 2009 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27...
- epistasis 3y ago
  The alternative isn't carbon emission, the alternative is far cheaper wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, battery storage (both lithium and many others) The only question is if nuclear can offer something compelling to keep it in the mix. We have roughly 100 1GW of nuclear reactors in the US that are reaching end of life, and 90% of those communities would like to see replacements to keep the jobs in town. However, nobody will ever invest in a project that looks like Vogtle, due to the cost. Unfortunately, recent projects in France, Finland, and the UK all look quite similar in cost of dollars and time. Which is to say, that nuclear will not be able to provide a climate solution at all. It's too late, we can not even build 100 rectors in the next 15 years to replace what needs to be retired! If nuclear advocates want more nuclear, they need to focus on the details and the engineering and the management, not merely rah-rah for the tech. The devil is in the details, and projects like Vogtle have virtually guaranteed that nuclear will not be built in the US in quantity for at least a generation.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The only reason Vogtle was built was because of the fixed price contract Westinghouse signed. Just as in the first nuclear buildout in the 1960s, fixed price contracts revealed themselves to be ruinous for the NPP builder. No utility going forward is going to sign a contract that puts them on the hook for cost escalation (which turned out to be this contract too, once Westinghouse went bankrupt.)
    - epistasis 3y ago
      And EDF learned the hard way at Olkiluoto about saying they can build something at a specified price. The only way for nuclear or be built in advanced economies is to have some government provide subsidies far beyond what renewables have ever reviewed. And at least with renewables there was the goal of making it cheaper for the next round of production. We don't that get that benefit when we throw an extra $10B at a nuclear build.
topspin 3y ago
> 3 trillion The US federal budget deficit was 2.8 trillion in 2021. One year. I can't remember any US leader of any party even mentioning it.

by ryan93 3y ago

justrealist 3y ago

So we could decarbonize the entire US power grid for what we spent on COVID relief/stimulus? That seems like a good deal, even without economies of scale...

Scoundreller 3y ago
Not just decarbonize, but become a major fossil fuel exporter and be all smug about like a certain Nordic country…
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > become a major fossil fuel exporter Wouldn't doing that undo a lot of the gains from this? If we export fossil fuels instead of burning them, we aren't really decarbonizing. We're just having the carbonization take place somewhere else.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    It offsets significant carbon production elsewhere (especially if we only export natgas), and defunds from some of the worst governments on earth.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > It offsets significant carbon production elsewhere Does it? Or does it simply increase the amount of fossil fuels being used elsewhere? > defunds from some of the worst governments on earth. That has nothing to do with decarbonization, though.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    you are right, oil extraction is literally producing carbon (which is then processed and burned at later stage somewhere else) so we need to separate: carbon production and carbon emissions. a lot of so called decarbonized industries are decarbonized simply because they outsourced carbon intensive parts to third world, but carbon is still being produced and emitted. I think this is why some people are supporting De-Growth movement, that just by reducing consumption of nonessential stuff, we would decrease carbon production and emissions globally
coldpie 3y ago
Yup. The Georgia plant seems expensive until you remember it cost half of what Twitter did.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  $30B is more than half of $44B.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  "Cheaper than twitter" is a canonical example of damning with faint praise.

aschearer 3y ago

What if climage change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?[1] [1]: 2009 - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27s_a_big_hoax_and_we_create_a_better_world_for_nothing%3F.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/What_if_it%27...

epistasis 3y ago
The alternative isn't carbon emission, the alternative is far cheaper wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, battery storage (both lithium and many others) The only question is if nuclear can offer something compelling to keep it in the mix. We have roughly 100 1GW of nuclear reactors in the US that are reaching end of life, and 90% of those communities would like to see replacements to keep the jobs in town. However, nobody will ever invest in a project that looks like Vogtle, due to the cost. Unfortunately, recent projects in France, Finland, and the UK all look quite similar in cost of dollars and time. Which is to say, that nuclear will not be able to provide a climate solution at all. It's too late, we can not even build 100 rectors in the next 15 years to replace what needs to be retired! If nuclear advocates want more nuclear, they need to focus on the details and the engineering and the management, not merely rah-rah for the tech. The devil is in the details, and projects like Vogtle have virtually guaranteed that nuclear will not be built in the US in quantity for at least a generation.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The only reason Vogtle was built was because of the fixed price contract Westinghouse signed. Just as in the first nuclear buildout in the 1960s, fixed price contracts revealed themselves to be ruinous for the NPP builder. No utility going forward is going to sign a contract that puts them on the hook for cost escalation (which turned out to be this contract too, once Westinghouse went bankrupt.)
  - epistasis 3y ago
    And EDF learned the hard way at Olkiluoto about saying they can build something at a specified price. The only way for nuclear or be built in advanced economies is to have some government provide subsidies far beyond what renewables have ever reviewed. And at least with renewables there was the goal of making it cheaper for the next round of production. We don't that get that benefit when we throw an extra $10B at a nuclear build.

topspin 3y ago

> 3 trillion The US federal budget deficit was 2.8 trillion in 2021. One year. I can't remember any US leader of any party even mentioning it.