3 ms·

Properly taxing externalities on a global level would likely result in a giant reduction in fossil fuel burning and would indeed be a great thing. I'm a bit co

Properly taxing externalities on a global level would likely result in a giant reduction in fossil fuel burning and would indeed be a great thing. I'm a bit confused as to why you think nuclear power would result in a lower standard of living though.

Retric 3y ago
It all comes down to economic efficiency. Nuclear wasn’t the biggest issue with the suggestion rather than the carbon capture first approach. However the reason Nuclear is more expensive at scale than battery backed renewables is it takes a great deal of effort that could be used on other things. You can add whatever subsides you want, someone needs to actually do the work. Obviously wind/solar power plants and batteries etc still need manpower and materials it’s just vastly less. We could run the world on nuclear power, but millions of extra people directly or indirectly supporting the nuclear industry are millions of people not building amusement parks, maintaining bridges, providing healthcare, etc etc. PS: Risks also get factored into the above calculation at scale. Three mile island didn’t cause significant issues for public health but it did destroy valuable equipment and cleanup was expensive. As such even the cost of insurance represents an economic cost in the long term. 1 or even 500 reactors may have zero significant issues, build 10,000 of them around the world and someone will once again fuck something up.
- concordDance 3y ago
  > Nuclear is more expensive at scale than battery backed renewables How much storage you putting there? Because unless it's an hour then nuclear will be cheaper. The 90% of the cost of 100% solar and wind comes from needing to store up to several weeks worth of electricity. Also, the vast majority of the cost of nuclear comes from overregulation. Plants were 6x cheaper 40 years ago even adjusting for inflation. And we know how safe those are (safe enough to kill less people per kwh than solar and wind back in 2010!). People/politicians simply seem to calculate a death due to radiation as worth $2 billion to prevent, while a death from lung cancer isn't even worth $1 million (numbers very approximate).
  - Retric 3y ago
    You’re mistaken on several points. The major concern with Nuclear is the economic cost of accidents not the deaths. Grid solar is by far the safest option per kWh, but we still subsidize relatively deadly rooftop solar because such low numbers of deaths aren’t a major concern for regulators. Next both Nuclear and solar/wind want storage/dispatchable power to follow the daily, weekly, and yearly demand curve. Hydro can provide significant flexibility but scaling Nuclear means falling capacity factors and thus higher cost per kWh without storage. As to battery backed solar, there’s several existing power plants that operate with the ability to store 40-50% of their daily generation capacity that are viable with current grid prices. Significant renewable storage is therefore already cost effective as long as the source electricity is cheap enough. Finally regulations don’t really explain the price differences alone when you compare different countries and they all have similar issues you need to look deeper. One example of a root issues is modern skilled workers simply demand higher salaries. Most industries have offset this with higher levels of productivity and or outsourcing, but the Nuclear industry has completely failed here. In theory many of these issues could be addressed, but current plans fail to do so in fundamental ways. Small modular reactors for example have gotten a lot of press but only address a small portion of overall costs. Not useless but you still need expensive workers, thick concrete walls for safety, fuel enrichment, heat exchangers, turbines, cooling towers and ponds, security guards, decommissioning, etc etc. CANDU reactors attempted to address the need for enrichment but failed to be cost effective for other reasons. And so it goes through many promising concepts that never materialized.

Retric 3y ago

It all comes down to economic efficiency. Nuclear wasn’t the biggest issue with the suggestion rather than the carbon capture first approach. However the reason Nuclear is more expensive at scale than battery backed renewables is it takes a great deal of effort that could be used on other things. You can add whatever subsides you want, someone needs to actually do the work. Obviously wind/solar power plants and batteries etc still need manpower and materials it’s just vastly less. We could run the world on nuclear power, but millions of extra people directly or indirectly supporting the nuclear industry are millions of people not building amusement parks, maintaining bridges, providing healthcare, etc etc. PS: Risks also get factored into the above calculation at scale. Three mile island didn’t cause significant issues for public health but it did destroy valuable equipment and cleanup was expensive. As such even the cost of insurance represents an economic cost in the long term. 1 or even 500 reactors may have zero significant issues, build 10,000 of them around the world and someone will once again fuck something up.

concordDance 3y ago
> Nuclear is more expensive at scale than battery backed renewables How much storage you putting there? Because unless it's an hour then nuclear will be cheaper. The 90% of the cost of 100% solar and wind comes from needing to store up to several weeks worth of electricity. Also, the vast majority of the cost of nuclear comes from overregulation. Plants were 6x cheaper 40 years ago even adjusting for inflation. And we know how safe those are (safe enough to kill less people per kwh than solar and wind back in 2010!). People/politicians simply seem to calculate a death due to radiation as worth $2 billion to prevent, while a death from lung cancer isn't even worth $1 million (numbers very approximate).
- Retric 3y ago
  You’re mistaken on several points. The major concern with Nuclear is the economic cost of accidents not the deaths. Grid solar is by far the safest option per kWh, but we still subsidize relatively deadly rooftop solar because such low numbers of deaths aren’t a major concern for regulators. Next both Nuclear and solar/wind want storage/dispatchable power to follow the daily, weekly, and yearly demand curve. Hydro can provide significant flexibility but scaling Nuclear means falling capacity factors and thus higher cost per kWh without storage. As to battery backed solar, there’s several existing power plants that operate with the ability to store 40-50% of their daily generation capacity that are viable with current grid prices. Significant renewable storage is therefore already cost effective as long as the source electricity is cheap enough. Finally regulations don’t really explain the price differences alone when you compare different countries and they all have similar issues you need to look deeper. One example of a root issues is modern skilled workers simply demand higher salaries. Most industries have offset this with higher levels of productivity and or outsourcing, but the Nuclear industry has completely failed here. In theory many of these issues could be addressed, but current plans fail to do so in fundamental ways. Small modular reactors for example have gotten a lot of press but only address a small portion of overall costs. Not useless but you still need expensive workers, thick concrete walls for safety, fuel enrichment, heat exchangers, turbines, cooling towers and ponds, security guards, decommissioning, etc etc. CANDU reactors attempted to address the need for enrichment but failed to be cost effective for other reasons. And so it goes through many promising concepts that never materialized.