3 ms·

> Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Yes. Nuclear technology can go down in cost by a factor of 1

> Is it really likely that anything can happen to Nuclear that makes it able to compete with that? Yes. Nuclear technology can go down in cost by a factor of 100. If that happens, it can definitely compete with solar. In fact, it can compete even if it goes down in cost by a factor of 10. You'll say that this is fantasy. And at this point it is, but there are no reasons to dismiss this as impossible. There are lots of new nuclear reactor designs. The current designs (pressurized water reactors) all need very thick pressure vessels, hundreds of tons each. There are very few forges in the world that can manufacture them (maybe 10, certainly less than 20), and they manufacture one now and then, so the prices are astronomical. The new designs either have much smaller pressure vessels (the SMRs), that can be manufactured for a cost exponentially lower, or have no pressure vessels (like liquid metal reactors or molten salt reactors). I would estimate there are about 20 essentially different designs out there. Of course there are lots of unknowns, but I think a few of them have the chance to become 100 times cheaper than the current generation of nuclear technology.

locallost 3y ago
The reason to dismiss this as impossible is that it hasn't happened in 70 years, and it's not like we haven't tried a lot of approaches. At one point we need to accept something doesn't work.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  You could use the same argument for rockets before SpaceX came and cut their price by a factor of 100.
  - locallost 3y ago
    Sure, no problem. There's then also no argument against the price of renewables or storage going down by a factor of a quadrillion. It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". The question was also "is there really anything happening in nuclear?" The answer is no. SMRs are not a new thing, and the idea was given up on already [1]. That industry is simply running in circles waiting for people to collectively forget its past failures so it can try the same failed ideas all over again. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      > It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". As I said, I am very happy about the exponential growth in solar and wind. But nuclear is not just any technology. It is a miracle of nature and a crowning achievement of science and technology. The energy released when one nucleus splits is millions of times the energy released when electrons rearrange their orbitals during chemical reactions. The efficiency of fission is just 1000 times lower than the efficiency of the E=mc^2, which is to say of the ultimate reaction, the matter-antimatter reaction. Fusion is 6 times more energy dense than fission, but fission we have and fusion we don't.
Kon5ole 3y ago
But the main cost of nuclear isn't the construction of the reactors. It's the management of the fuel, waste and the operation of the plants, the salaries of the people involved in keeping everything safe at all times, the repairs and maintenance, the special transport vehicles, the refineries of the fuel and so on. These costs are partially hidden in general taxes since they are often handled by the government, but they still exist. The Rancho seco nuclear plant is costing some 10 million per year, 30 years after it closed. The cost of "having made it" is likely to eclipse the cost of actually making it. Even if your prediction should occur, it won't reduce the total cost of nuclear power by a lot, and it will have to compete with plants that (for example) provide free electricity from the sun, since their costs are basically all paid upfront.

locallost 3y ago

The reason to dismiss this as impossible is that it hasn't happened in 70 years, and it's not like we haven't tried a lot of approaches. At one point we need to accept something doesn't work.

credit_guy 3y ago
You could use the same argument for rockets before SpaceX came and cut their price by a factor of 100.
- locallost 3y ago
  Sure, no problem. There's then also no argument against the price of renewables or storage going down by a factor of a quadrillion. It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". The question was also "is there really anything happening in nuclear?" The answer is no. SMRs are not a new thing, and the idea was given up on already [1]. That industry is simply running in circles waiting for people to collectively forget its past failures so it can try the same failed ideas all over again. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > It seems to me the question for some is less "how do we get some progress" and more "how do we get some progress using my favorite technology". As I said, I am very happy about the exponential growth in solar and wind. But nuclear is not just any technology. It is a miracle of nature and a crowning achievement of science and technology. The energy released when one nucleus splits is millions of times the energy released when electrons rearrange their orbitals during chemical reactions. The efficiency of fission is just 1000 times lower than the efficiency of the E=mc^2, which is to say of the ultimate reaction, the matter-antimatter reaction. Fusion is 6 times more energy dense than fission, but fission we have and fusion we don't.

Kon5ole 3y ago

But the main cost of nuclear isn't the construction of the reactors. It's the management of the fuel, waste and the operation of the plants, the salaries of the people involved in keeping everything safe at all times, the repairs and maintenance, the special transport vehicles, the refineries of the fuel and so on. These costs are partially hidden in general taxes since they are often handled by the government, but they still exist. The Rancho seco nuclear plant is costing some 10 million per year, 30 years after it closed. The cost of "having made it" is likely to eclipse the cost of actually making it. Even if your prediction should occur, it won't reduce the total cost of nuclear power by a lot, and it will have to compete with plants that (for example) provide free electricity from the sun, since their costs are basically all paid upfront.