5 ms·

I am not surprised. Over the last few years, social media has been absolutely flooded with people claiming that nuclear is the "one weird trick THEY don't want

by crote 3y ago

I am not surprised. Over the last few years, social media has been absolutely flooded with people claiming that nuclear is the "one weird trick THEY don't want you to know about" to solving climate change. It is supposed to solve every single problem, and probably even cure cancer in the process - often relying on theoretical or experimental concepts which have never been tried in practice. Meanwhile, the reactors currently / recently constructed are massively over budget and years behind schedule. Nobody is willing to invest in them unless the government is willing to guarantee a massive subsidy on the electricity produced. Additional reactors will at best come online in a decade or two. And during all this solar and wind are rapidly increasing their market share while being weaned off the initial subsidies. Literally everyone wants to build it and in many areas we are now seeing problems because too many people are building it, leading to overcapacity. Nuclear was a great idea in the 70s, but got a significant reputation hit due to high-profile nuclear incidents, cost overruns, and long construction delays. It was essentially killed by cheap coal becoming available with the rise of surface mining, just like coal is now being killed by cheap gas. In 2023 the economic reality is that nuclear simply isn't a viable option anymore, and it would be quite foolish to rely on it to solve climate change in any way.

SamBam 3y ago
While this is the standard answer that people who have looked into it deeper give, it still surprises me. The largest solar farm in the US is about 570 MW. Some have calculated that we're going to need to build two 400 MW farms every week for the next 30 years to reach a "middle-road renewable energy scenario." [1] That's insane. (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do that.) So we're still going to be struggling in 20 years. Wouldn't we be in a better position then if we had also started the process of building new nuclear plants 20 years prior? "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is today," etc. 1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443474 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443474
- solraph 3y ago
  > (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do that.) That's actually lower than what the USA is doing right now. "The US solar industry installed 6.1 gigawatts-direct current (GWdc) of capacity in the first quarter of 2023"[0] That is approx 469 MW of power being installed every week. [0]https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight (first link I could find)
  - SamBam 3y ago
    Sorry, I realize I was being confusing by measuring in 400 MW farms: the total required was 800 MW/week, which we're not hitting yet. We are at the right order of magnitude, though, as you show. The question is whether we can hit the actual number required (which is close to double what we have now) and sustain it for another three decades.
    - marcosdumay 3y ago
      > sustain it for another three decades You keep saying "sustain", but solar has been growing exponentially and there is still no sign of an inflection. "Sustaining" a rate of growth is the wrong concept to model it.
      - SamBam 3y ago
        I disagree. Just because there's no sign of inflection yet in is earliest period of exponential growth doesn't mean that the conditions to keep building at this rate (or, rather, faster) will remain for another 30 years. We're in a period with low-hanging fruit. Lots of available space. Lots of roofs that don't have don't panels yet. Lots of mines churning our rare elements. What will happen as solar starts to saturate the market, and the price of electricity continues to fall (thus lowering the incentive to build more farms) while the available space shrinks and the number of rare elements decreases (increasing the cost of farms)? I'm not saying this will happen, but it was mentioned in the Greens Dilemma article posted and, and is certainly worth thinking about.
hedora 3y ago
If you price in externalities, as we will have to do in order to slow down climate change, then nuclear is way less expensive than coal or gas. Also, other countries have historically been able to build plants on reasonable timeframes and budgets. If there was political will, we could have a large fleet of nuclear plants in under a decade.
- crote 3y ago
  Oh absolutely, but that's not going to make the comparison with solar and wind any better. It'd probably make carbon capture for gas a really interesting peaker solution, though! Considering that during the 1970s nuclear boom a single plant still took a decade to construct, there is simply no way we could possibly have a "large fleet" in under a decade. The only country with the capability of doing so is China - and they are not going to be of much use to Western countries.
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    China is living proof we could do it- they are currently on track to build a _reactor a year_. We let all our nuclear talent age out and die.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      China is not building nearly as much nuclear as they are solar, wind, and storage. A reactor a year is a pathetic pace! 1GW/year! Even I f the US matched that, we will see most of our nuclear fleet age out before it was replaced. For contrast, China is expected to be able to produce 6TWh/year of batteries in 2030, ~260 "gigafactories" worth: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafactories-in-2030-pipeline-but-overcapacity-fears-loom https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafa... China's reluctance to invest as heavily in nuclear should be a clear sign that even with great competence at building nuclear, it's just not that attractive of a tech. It's barely functioning as a hedge, and is probably only being used for its side industries rather than as a serious power source.
evilos 3y ago
If you look at large nations that have actually decarbed their grid, they do it with hydro first and nuclear second. Show me even a medium sized nation that is predominantly powered by solar/wind and isn't utterly reliant on imports. Nuclear is absolutely economically viable so long as you build one design several times and don't let regulators insist on crazy handycaps. That's how France, Sweden, Korea, China, and Japan successfully built out. Japan's median built time was 3.8 years during its build out. China builds plants today with $3000/kw capital costs which is as cheap as coal. Nuclear technology is a proven solution despite all the mental gymnastics people do to insist otherwise.
Georgelemental 3y ago
> Meanwhile, the reactors currently / recently constructed are massively over budget and years behind schedule. Nobody is willing to invest in them unless the government is willing to guarantee a massive subsidy on the electricity produced. The massive costs are entirely due to excessive regulations. In places and times where the rules are reasonable, plants get built on time and under budget.

by crote 3y ago

SamBam 3y ago

While this is the standard answer that people who have looked into it deeper give, it still surprises me. The largest solar farm in the US is about 570 MW. Some have calculated that we're going to need to build two 400 MW farms every week for the next 30 years to reach a "middle-road renewable energy scenario." [1] That's insane. (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do that.) So we're still going to be struggling in 20 years. Wouldn't we be in a better position then if we had also started the process of building new nuclear plants 20 years prior? "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is today," etc. 1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443474 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4443474

solraph 3y ago
> (Or we could be building one 400 MW solar farm and one 400 MW wind farm every week instead for 30 years. Point is, though, we're far from being able to do that.) That's actually lower than what the USA is doing right now. "The US solar industry installed 6.1 gigawatts-direct current (GWdc) of capacity in the first quarter of 2023"[0] That is approx 469 MW of power being installed every week. [0]https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight https://www.seia.org/us-solar-market-insight (first link I could find)
- SamBam 3y ago
  Sorry, I realize I was being confusing by measuring in 400 MW farms: the total required was 800 MW/week, which we're not hitting yet. We are at the right order of magnitude, though, as you show. The question is whether we can hit the actual number required (which is close to double what we have now) and sustain it for another three decades.
  - marcosdumay 3y ago
    > sustain it for another three decades You keep saying "sustain", but solar has been growing exponentially and there is still no sign of an inflection. "Sustaining" a rate of growth is the wrong concept to model it.
    - SamBam 3y ago
      I disagree. Just because there's no sign of inflection yet in is earliest period of exponential growth doesn't mean that the conditions to keep building at this rate (or, rather, faster) will remain for another 30 years. We're in a period with low-hanging fruit. Lots of available space. Lots of roofs that don't have don't panels yet. Lots of mines churning our rare elements. What will happen as solar starts to saturate the market, and the price of electricity continues to fall (thus lowering the incentive to build more farms) while the available space shrinks and the number of rare elements decreases (increasing the cost of farms)? I'm not saying this will happen, but it was mentioned in the Greens Dilemma article posted and, and is certainly worth thinking about.

hedora 3y ago

If you price in externalities, as we will have to do in order to slow down climate change, then nuclear is way less expensive than coal or gas. Also, other countries have historically been able to build plants on reasonable timeframes and budgets. If there was political will, we could have a large fleet of nuclear plants in under a decade.

crote 3y ago
Oh absolutely, but that's not going to make the comparison with solar and wind any better. It'd probably make carbon capture for gas a really interesting peaker solution, though! Considering that during the 1970s nuclear boom a single plant still took a decade to construct, there is simply no way we could possibly have a "large fleet" in under a decade. The only country with the capability of doing so is China - and they are not going to be of much use to Western countries.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  China is living proof we could do it- they are currently on track to build a _reactor a year_. We let all our nuclear talent age out and die.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    China is not building nearly as much nuclear as they are solar, wind, and storage. A reactor a year is a pathetic pace! 1GW/year! Even I f the US matched that, we will see most of our nuclear fleet age out before it was replaced. For contrast, China is expected to be able to produce 6TWh/year of batteries in 2030, ~260 "gigafactories" worth: https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafactories-in-2030-pipeline-but-overcapacity-fears-loom https://source.benchmarkminerals.com/article/over-400-gigafa... China's reluctance to invest as heavily in nuclear should be a clear sign that even with great competence at building nuclear, it's just not that attractive of a tech. It's barely functioning as a hedge, and is probably only being used for its side industries rather than as a serious power source.

evilos 3y ago

If you look at large nations that have actually decarbed their grid, they do it with hydro first and nuclear second. Show me even a medium sized nation that is predominantly powered by solar/wind and isn't utterly reliant on imports. Nuclear is absolutely economically viable so long as you build one design several times and don't let regulators insist on crazy handycaps. That's how France, Sweden, Korea, China, and Japan successfully built out. Japan's median built time was 3.8 years during its build out. China builds plants today with $3000/kw capital costs which is as cheap as coal. Nuclear technology is a proven solution despite all the mental gymnastics people do to insist otherwise.

Georgelemental 3y ago

> Meanwhile, the reactors currently / recently constructed are massively over budget and years behind schedule. Nobody is willing to invest in them unless the government is willing to guarantee a massive subsidy on the electricity produced. The massive costs are entirely due to excessive regulations. In places and times where the rules are reasonable, plants get built on time and under budget.