3 ms·

Have any of these modern cost effective designs been built yet? All of the third generation EPR projects being built in Europe have run hugely over budget. I r

Have any of these modern cost effective designs been built yet? All of the third generation EPR projects being built in Europe have run hugely over budget. I really thought if anyone could build nuclear plants cost effectively it would have been France so it's really made me lose hope in nuclear power.

ETH_start 3y ago
Wind and especially solar were massively subsidized for decades before accumulated innovations from the subsidized at-scale manufacturing, and economies of scale, pushed prices per unit down to levels that are competitive in the market. What nuclear needs is massive subsidies, especially in reactors using small modular designs that are more amenable to mass-manufacturing techniques and transportability, and it needs them sustained for decades until the competitive forces of the large market for SMRs has brought the price of reactors down to levels where they're competitive in the market without subsidies, at which point the growth of privately funded nuclear power would be self-sustaining.
- laurencerowe 3y ago
  The question is will these massive subsidises be better spent on nuclear or renewables and storage? Over the years nuclear has enjoyed enormous subsidies. If it were not for the huge decrease in costs for renewables over the past couple of decades and huge increase in cost for nuclear I’d be much more enthusiastic about nuclear power.
  - Gud 3y ago
    On both. Oil, gas and coal are the enemy here, not nuclear. I can’t believe that people are still arguing against nuclear. It’s an extremely proven technology. It can be built fast, cheap and safely.
    - laurencerowe 3y ago
      I’m completely against closing existing nuclear plants as they are doing in Germany. The big problem with new nuclear energy seems to be build cost so it makes sense to get as much as we can from existing plants. But at the end of the day real resources matter. Where should labour effort be directed? Costs reflect that effort. I’m not against nuclear but if redirecting effort (money, labour) from nuclear to renewables and storage seems likely to reduce co2 emissions faster then let’s redirect that effort. It’s fine for cool technologies to be abandoned when cheaper alternatives come along. If it’s possible to come up with a far cheaper form of nuclear power then great! But it’s hard to compete with the big fusion reactor in the sky.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting it at the SMR market to get the benefits of standardization and off-site construction. The best case scenario is solar/wind, along with their associated storage systems, continuing to see rapid cost reductions, and nuclear, through SMRs, becoming vastly more affordable alongside them. The two classes of electricity generators would each find ideal use-cases and produce an energy system that provides electricity at a lower cost than either could provide on their own. To expand a bit more on nuclear: we've never made a good effort at bringing down its cost. The SMR option I outlined is the route to achieving that. Giant plants built mostly on-site just don't benefit from large markets the way transportable goods that can be built off-site do. The SMR industry needs subsidies while in its embryonic stage to have a chance of showing what it can do, with respect to cost-effective electricity generation, when it's more developed.
- magicalist 3y ago
  Nuclear is massively subsidized and still no one wants to build it.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    Nuclear has been blocked in numerous places for decades—including in countries where it was successfully increasing electricity output—and the subsidies it's received have been nothing compared to those solar/wind receive(d). The subsidies have also not been directed at the SMR market, which is the only one that has the potential to see exponentially declining costs like what's seen in wind/solar.
Gud 3y ago
What about China? UAE? These countries actually know how to build large scale infrastructure projects and are highly successful building nuclear power plants.

ETH_start 3y ago

Wind and especially solar were massively subsidized for decades before accumulated innovations from the subsidized at-scale manufacturing, and economies of scale, pushed prices per unit down to levels that are competitive in the market. What nuclear needs is massive subsidies, especially in reactors using small modular designs that are more amenable to mass-manufacturing techniques and transportability, and it needs them sustained for decades until the competitive forces of the large market for SMRs has brought the price of reactors down to levels where they're competitive in the market without subsidies, at which point the growth of privately funded nuclear power would be self-sustaining.

laurencerowe 3y ago
The question is will these massive subsidises be better spent on nuclear or renewables and storage? Over the years nuclear has enjoyed enormous subsidies. If it were not for the huge decrease in costs for renewables over the past couple of decades and huge increase in cost for nuclear I’d be much more enthusiastic about nuclear power.
- Gud 3y ago
  On both. Oil, gas and coal are the enemy here, not nuclear. I can’t believe that people are still arguing against nuclear. It’s an extremely proven technology. It can be built fast, cheap and safely.
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    I’m completely against closing existing nuclear plants as they are doing in Germany. The big problem with new nuclear energy seems to be build cost so it makes sense to get as much as we can from existing plants. But at the end of the day real resources matter. Where should labour effort be directed? Costs reflect that effort. I’m not against nuclear but if redirecting effort (money, labour) from nuclear to renewables and storage seems likely to reduce co2 emissions faster then let’s redirect that effort. It’s fine for cool technologies to be abandoned when cheaper alternatives come along. If it’s possible to come up with a far cheaper form of nuclear power then great! But it’s hard to compete with the big fusion reactor in the sky.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting it at the SMR market to get the benefits of standardization and off-site construction. The best case scenario is solar/wind, along with their associated storage systems, continuing to see rapid cost reductions, and nuclear, through SMRs, becoming vastly more affordable alongside them. The two classes of electricity generators would each find ideal use-cases and produce an energy system that provides electricity at a lower cost than either could provide on their own. To expand a bit more on nuclear: we've never made a good effort at bringing down its cost. The SMR option I outlined is the route to achieving that. Giant plants built mostly on-site just don't benefit from large markets the way transportable goods that can be built off-site do. The SMR industry needs subsidies while in its embryonic stage to have a chance of showing what it can do, with respect to cost-effective electricity generation, when it's more developed.
magicalist 3y ago
Nuclear is massively subsidized and still no one wants to build it.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  Nuclear has been blocked in numerous places for decades—including in countries where it was successfully increasing electricity output—and the subsidies it's received have been nothing compared to those solar/wind receive(d). The subsidies have also not been directed at the SMR market, which is the only one that has the potential to see exponentially declining costs like what's seen in wind/solar.

Gud 3y ago

What about China? UAE? These countries actually know how to build large scale infrastructure projects and are highly successful building nuclear power plants.