4 ms·

It doesn't square, it's extraordinarily irrational. With a trillion dollars the US could build 40-60 new domestic nuclear power plants (we have 54 currently).

It doesn't square, it's extraordinarily irrational. With a trillion dollars the US could build 40-60 new domestic nuclear power plants (we have 54 currently). We can afford it (witness stimulus programs, or the Ukraine v Russia war). What we can't afford is to not do it and to watch our nuclear power base vanish. And we should be going further than that. We should be leveraging the global reserve currency and trade agreements to assist other stable countries in more cheaply (as cheaply as is possible with nuclear) building their own nuclear power plants. We can help countries either skip the fossil fuel driven economic build-out phase (in regards to fairly stable developing nations), or accelerate their leap off of it. And it can be beneficial to the US economy: export our tech, develop it further, train domestic labor specifically for this program.

taylodl 3y ago
So you're volunteering to put the nuclear power station in your backyard? Because that's the problem - lots of people say they support nuclear power until you try to build a nuclear power station anywhere close to them. Which brings up another problem, you need to build a nuclear power station near a water source such as a lake, or a river, which, interestingly enough, are the same kinds of places where people want to live. The ship has sailed on the current generation of nuclear power.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  Yep, no problem?
  - taylodl 3y ago
    Then get your neighbors on board and petition your local utility to build. Point out they're not going to have to spend the millions of dollars it takes to fight the lawsuits from those trying to prevent you from building the nuclear power station. You have them covered!
- adventured 3y ago
  > So you're volunteering to put the nuclear power station in your backyard? Sure. I have no problem with nuclear. Where can I sign?
ianburrell 3y ago
We could spend a trillion dollars on 50 nuclear reactors and increase the nuclear percentage to 30% (there are actually 92 nuclear reactors in US). Or we could spend a trillion dollars on 1TW of solar (400GW actual power). Or a mix of solar and wind, or solar and batteries for the off-peak usage. That is enough to wipe out coal. Enough to bankrupt nuclear power plants. Two trillion is probably enough to decarbonize electricity except for natural gas peaker plants that need for bad days.
- nradov 3y ago
  How much battery capacity would that require to maintain grid stability? How many years will it take to manufacture those batteries? Where will the raw materials be mined?
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Solar tends to be better for grid stability since it has stable frequency and can dispatch quickly. To deal with changes, like the evening peak, in the short-term we can keep using natural gas peaker plants. For longer term, we don't know if expensive batteries are solution. There are lots of groups working on storage, and it is possible that cheap batteries, pumped hydropower, something else, or all of the above will be the best solution. I think it isn't worth worrying about storage until we need it and know what to build. Also, we don't need that much short-term storage, enough to deal with the evening peak and other daily variations. Long-term storage can be dealt with by overcapacity in renewables, which allows making fuels. The remaining calm, winter days can be dealt with generated fuels or natural gas.
    - nradov 3y ago
      We are already at the point where we need grid scale storage to significantly expand renewable power. A few little gas turbine speaker plants aren't going to be sufficient. We're going to need much larger thermal gas plants for the foreseeable future. There are a variety of potential options for storage. None of them have proven to be economically viable at scale. Hopefully something will work well enough, but until we see solid evidence that's not a reasonable basis for planning.

taylodl 3y ago

So you're volunteering to put the nuclear power station in your backyard? Because that's the problem - lots of people say they support nuclear power until you try to build a nuclear power station anywhere close to them. Which brings up another problem, you need to build a nuclear power station near a water source such as a lake, or a river, which, interestingly enough, are the same kinds of places where people want to live. The ship has sailed on the current generation of nuclear power.

Moldoteck 3y ago
Yep, no problem?
- taylodl 3y ago
  Then get your neighbors on board and petition your local utility to build. Point out they're not going to have to spend the millions of dollars it takes to fight the lawsuits from those trying to prevent you from building the nuclear power station. You have them covered!
adventured 3y ago
> So you're volunteering to put the nuclear power station in your backyard? Sure. I have no problem with nuclear. Where can I sign?

ianburrell 3y ago

We could spend a trillion dollars on 50 nuclear reactors and increase the nuclear percentage to 30% (there are actually 92 nuclear reactors in US). Or we could spend a trillion dollars on 1TW of solar (400GW actual power). Or a mix of solar and wind, or solar and batteries for the off-peak usage. That is enough to wipe out coal. Enough to bankrupt nuclear power plants. Two trillion is probably enough to decarbonize electricity except for natural gas peaker plants that need for bad days.

nradov 3y ago
How much battery capacity would that require to maintain grid stability? How many years will it take to manufacture those batteries? Where will the raw materials be mined?
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Solar tends to be better for grid stability since it has stable frequency and can dispatch quickly. To deal with changes, like the evening peak, in the short-term we can keep using natural gas peaker plants. For longer term, we don't know if expensive batteries are solution. There are lots of groups working on storage, and it is possible that cheap batteries, pumped hydropower, something else, or all of the above will be the best solution. I think it isn't worth worrying about storage until we need it and know what to build. Also, we don't need that much short-term storage, enough to deal with the evening peak and other daily variations. Long-term storage can be dealt with by overcapacity in renewables, which allows making fuels. The remaining calm, winter days can be dealt with generated fuels or natural gas.
  - nradov 3y ago
    We are already at the point where we need grid scale storage to significantly expand renewable power. A few little gas turbine speaker plants aren't going to be sufficient. We're going to need much larger thermal gas plants for the foreseeable future. There are a variety of potential options for storage. None of them have proven to be economically viable at scale. Hopefully something will work well enough, but until we see solid evidence that's not a reasonable basis for planning.