4 ms·

My hope is that some day that the passion for the political side of nuclear translates into passion for the logistical and project management challenges of nucl

My hope is that some day that the passion for the political side of nuclear translates into passion for the logistical and project management challenges of nuclear. There's this false belief that if people just wanted nuclear, politically, it would be built in large amounts. In reality, in advanced economies with high labor costs, nuclear is nearly impossible to build. This is true even in countries like France, that complete large construction projects like public transit and trains without cost disease. In the US, we are beset with an additional challenge beyond the inherent high costs of high-labor demands for precision construction; we also have difficulty with any sort of project management of large construction projects. If nuclear has a future in the US, we need to start construction on 100GW of reactors in the next few years to replace reactors at their end of life. But we only have a few tiny projects for SMRs, with designs that are barely complete, if at all. The US is going to lose most of its nuclear power before it will build it back, if it ever does build back more nuclear. This is a stark contrast to renewables and storage, which are mature technologies that are on the TW scale, a magnitude that the nuclear industry can only dream of.

Krasnol 3y ago
I doubt this day will come. The technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies. Time to move on and care about the radioactive remains of this technology from the past.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies This is totally untrue. Presently, in advanced economies, it’s cheaper to build solar and wind. If those economics change, what’s deployed will as well. (Or a country risks fuckup à la Deutschland.)
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    "Totally untrue"? Just face the facts...https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr... it's over. > If those economics change How are those economics supposed to change? Prices for renewables keep on falling, while those for nuclear never stopped rising. You should come up with some sources for those claims far away from reality... And what "fuckup" is this supposed to be? Germany build 7.9 Megawatt only solar in 7 months this year, and it's just the beginning after 16 years of stagnation. Wake up. https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduktion-sonne-solaranlagen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduk... https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-gaspreis-spritpreis-energieversorgung https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-ga...
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > How are those economics supposed to change? With better technology. Again, we agree that right now we should be deploying solar and wind. But because it’s cheapest. The anti-nukes didn’t win, economics did. (Again, case in point Germany versus America.)
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        What is this "better technology"? It's nowhere to be seen, SMRs are even more expensive. So what are you talking about? Sure, did anti-nukes win. They forced the exit in Germany and the growth of renewables. Huge German subsidies pushed development of renewables for years and made it cheaper for the rest of the world AS A RESULT. You can lie to yourself about it, but it won't change the facts. True environmentalists won. Fake ones like Shellenberger lost.
        epistasis 3y ago
        I agree with your assessment, but there is still some chance that there's a big innovation in nuclear that we can't foresee. Sure, it's been around nearly three quarters of a century, but there is a chance. People in the industry have not been focused on innovation, so there has not been much exploration of the space, and honestly even going back to the pre-TMI era it wasn't about driving down costs as much as massive projects. Battery tech was stagnant for a long long time before the current decades-long innovation push in lithium ion. I think we could see something like this for nuclear, especially if they get away from thermal conversion to electricity and figure out direct conversion of some sort (this is pure sci-fi right now!) I'm not hopeful, and it won't happen soon, but the space has not been fully explored, IMHO, so there's a non-zero chance oh something disruptive. Perhaps not with the current on the table proposals at the SMR startups, but outside of that there is room for a shakeup. Let's check again in the 2060s or 2080s we'll have something fantastic.
bee_rider 3y ago
I really don’t think there’s much passion for nuclear power generally, I never see it discussed in any context other than as a contrast to renewables. I’ll believe it has a future when I see people randomly bringing it up in oil price discussions or things like that.
- epistasis 3y ago
  I do see that occasionally, but it is not a large percentage of people. One of the most influential people in energy, Jigar Shah, is far more rosy on the possibility of the nuclear industry getting its act together than I am. If he delivers loans to the right people that can actually execute, and he definitely gets a good view into the sort of people trying to build than I do, then he may very well be right.

Krasnol 3y ago

I doubt this day will come. The technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies. Time to move on and care about the radioactive remains of this technology from the past.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> technology has been replaced and energy generation on this planet has turned toward renewable energies This is totally untrue. Presently, in advanced economies, it’s cheaper to build solar and wind. If those economics change, what’s deployed will as well. (Or a country risks fuckup à la Deutschland.)
- Krasnol 3y ago
  "Totally untrue"? Just face the facts...https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr... it's over. > If those economics change How are those economics supposed to change? Prices for renewables keep on falling, while those for nuclear never stopped rising. You should come up with some sources for those claims far away from reality... And what "fuckup" is this supposed to be? Germany build 7.9 Megawatt only solar in 7 months this year, and it's just the beginning after 16 years of stagnation. Wake up. https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduktion-sonne-solaranlagen-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/technologie/stromproduk... https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-gaspreis-spritpreis-energieversorgung https://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/energiemonitor-deutschland-ga...
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > How are those economics supposed to change? With better technology. Again, we agree that right now we should be deploying solar and wind. But because it’s cheapest. The anti-nukes didn’t win, economics did. (Again, case in point Germany versus America.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      What is this "better technology"? It's nowhere to be seen, SMRs are even more expensive. So what are you talking about? Sure, did anti-nukes win. They forced the exit in Germany and the growth of renewables. Huge German subsidies pushed development of renewables for years and made it cheaper for the rest of the world AS A RESULT. You can lie to yourself about it, but it won't change the facts. True environmentalists won. Fake ones like Shellenberger lost.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        I agree with your assessment, but there is still some chance that there's a big innovation in nuclear that we can't foresee. Sure, it's been around nearly three quarters of a century, but there is a chance. People in the industry have not been focused on innovation, so there has not been much exploration of the space, and honestly even going back to the pre-TMI era it wasn't about driving down costs as much as massive projects. Battery tech was stagnant for a long long time before the current decades-long innovation push in lithium ion. I think we could see something like this for nuclear, especially if they get away from thermal conversion to electricity and figure out direct conversion of some sort (this is pure sci-fi right now!) I'm not hopeful, and it won't happen soon, but the space has not been fully explored, IMHO, so there's a non-zero chance oh something disruptive. Perhaps not with the current on the table proposals at the SMR startups, but outside of that there is room for a shakeup. Let's check again in the 2060s or 2080s we'll have something fantastic.

bee_rider 3y ago

I really don’t think there’s much passion for nuclear power generally, I never see it discussed in any context other than as a contrast to renewables. I’ll believe it has a future when I see people randomly bringing it up in oil price discussions or things like that.

epistasis 3y ago
I do see that occasionally, but it is not a large percentage of people. One of the most influential people in energy, Jigar Shah, is far more rosy on the possibility of the nuclear industry getting its act together than I am. If he delivers loans to the right people that can actually execute, and he definitely gets a good view into the sort of people trying to build than I do, then he may very well be right.