3 ms·

Germany the same cost/benefit trade off when it decided not to build nuclear power stations that Iran did when it decided to build them. Iran wants to move its

by pydry 3y ago

Germany the same cost/benefit trade off when it decided not to build nuclear power stations that Iran did when it decided to build them. Iran wants to move itself closer to being able to build a nuke in a hurry if necessary, which is why the west is publicly freaked out and angry about their PWRs. Germany isnt bothered. Like everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way of going green because at 5x the cost of solar and wind, and more expensive than hydrogen+solar+wind thats the last thing it'll ever be. Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for a 5x cost difference: https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-cheaper-and-greener-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-plant https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea... The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense.

themaninthedark 3y ago
>Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for that cost difference. How do you account for the cost of power intermittency? The 2021 Texas blackout is estimated at 80 ~ 130 Billion, with 246 deaths. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2021-Winter-Storm-Uri-AAR-Findings-Report.pdf https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2...
sojournerc 3y ago
But with wind and solar, you still need base load, so you have a plant either way, or an enormous investment in battery (which have their own lifecycle of emissions and pollution) Nuclear is cleaner than Nat. Gas is cleaner than coal.
panick21_ 3y ago
> why the west is publicly freaked out and angry about their PWRs The West wasn't freaked out. In fact, France had agree to provide the technology and help built the plant. They would also do fuel management. Then the US came in guns blazing killed the deal and started a 20 year idiotic trade war on Iran because of it. > Like everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way of going green If we compare the cost it took France to go Green and what Germany now spends without even being Green, this is simply inaccurate statement. The complete cost of the whole French nuclear fleet is less then the emergency money Germany deployed during the energy crisis. And French consumers had low energy pricing during the crisis while Germany had very high energy prices. Nuclear is incredibly cost efficient and proven to work as soon as you built large numbers in a short time period. And Wind and Solar alone are simply not a solution, you have to take into account the cost of upgrades to the grid and you have to take into account storage. > The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. Look at how well it worked for the UAE. Its not that expensive per plant, these plants will work for the next 80-100 years and even only building for the per plant cost goes down.
- realusername 3y ago
  I don't get why peope don't understand that. The only reason that France has so much nuclear power is because of the fuel crisis of the 70s. Nuclear is stellar at replacing fossil fuels and that's basically why it got developed in the first place.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Even when fuel prices improved, France continued building.
    - realusername 3y ago
      Indeed, but the petrol crisis made a pretty deep lasting impact on the french public. The country had to resort to petrol coupons for the first time since the second world war and that's a pretty big symbol.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  The political failure to solve nuclear power construction and lifetime fuel lifecycle issues for the last 40 years is a huge component of climate change. We technically could have switched substantial amounts of power generation to nuclear, safely, at reasonable cost, with a spent fuel storage solution... by the 1980s. Ironically, the stars were aligned by the mid-80s, if Reagan hadn't punted post-Chernobyl and had instead used it to crow about the superiority of modern, safer Western reactor designs and put serious federal money behind construction programs. Per unit costs are dominated by volume. Why politicians can't understand this boggles the mind.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
throwbadubadu 3y ago
> The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. Just the dream of staying lazily in luxury.. so have pardon please. > build a nuke in a hurry .. everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way While easily confirmed that's the last thing people want to hear ;)
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
It wasn't "the West" that was freaked out, it was Israel. AIPAC spent a ton of money to oppose the deal.

by pydry 3y ago

themaninthedark 3y ago

>Even the lack of intermittency doesn't come within a mile of making up for that cost difference. How do you account for the cost of power intermittency? The 2021 Texas blackout is estimated at 80 ~ 130 Billion, with 246 deaths. https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2021/0415 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2021-Winter-Storm-Uri-AAR-Findings-Report.pdf https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/HSEM/2...

sojournerc 3y ago

But with wind and solar, you still need base load, so you have a plant either way, or an enormous investment in battery (which have their own lifecycle of emissions and pollution) Nuclear is cleaner than Nat. Gas is cleaner than coal.

panick21_ 3y ago

> why the west is publicly freaked out and angry about their PWRs The West wasn't freaked out. In fact, France had agree to provide the technology and help built the plant. They would also do fuel management. Then the US came in guns blazing killed the deal and started a 20 year idiotic trade war on Iran because of it. > Like everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way of going green If we compare the cost it took France to go Green and what Germany now spends without even being Green, this is simply inaccurate statement. The complete cost of the whole French nuclear fleet is less then the emergency money Germany deployed during the energy crisis. And French consumers had low energy pricing during the crisis while Germany had very high energy prices. Nuclear is incredibly cost efficient and proven to work as soon as you built large numbers in a short time period. And Wind and Solar alone are simply not a solution, you have to take into account the cost of upgrades to the grid and you have to take into account storage. > The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. Look at how well it worked for the UAE. Its not that expensive per plant, these plants will work for the next 80-100 years and even only building for the per plant cost goes down.

realusername 3y ago
I don't get why peope don't understand that. The only reason that France has so much nuclear power is because of the fuel crisis of the 70s. Nuclear is stellar at replacing fossil fuels and that's basically why it got developed in the first place.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Even when fuel prices improved, France continued building.
  - realusername 3y ago
    Indeed, but the petrol crisis made a pretty deep lasting impact on the french public. The country had to resort to petrol coupons for the first time since the second world war and that's a pretty big symbol.
ethbr1 3y ago
The political failure to solve nuclear power construction and lifetime fuel lifecycle issues for the last 40 years is a huge component of climate change. We technically could have switched substantial amounts of power generation to nuclear, safely, at reasonable cost, with a spent fuel storage solution... by the 1980s. Ironically, the stars were aligned by the mid-80s, if Reagan hadn't punted post-Chernobyl and had instead used it to crow about the superiority of modern, safer Western reactor designs and put serious federal money behind construction programs. Per unit costs are dominated by volume. Why politicians can't understand this boggles the mind.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

throwbadubadu 3y ago

> The "nuclear is the new green jesus" movement makes no sense. Just the dream of staying lazily in luxury.. so have pardon please. > build a nuke in a hurry .. everyone else who builds nuclear power plants it certainly wasnt doing it because it was a cost effective way While easily confirmed that's the last thing people want to hear ;)

lo_zamoyski 3y ago

It wasn't "the West" that was freaked out, it was Israel. AIPAC spent a ton of money to oppose the deal.