3 ms·

They are not cheaper. They appeared cheaper for a while when there was a bubble and interest rates are zero. Now wind and solar farm projects are failing.

by rr808 3y ago

jayd16 3y ago
How is it that nuclear didn't benefit from the same bubble?
- eru 3y ago
  Mostly red tape. It's much tighter regulated, and takes longer to get any project off the ground.
r00fus 3y ago
The problem isn’t due to bubble economics but contractual fixed rates that no longer make sense given post-covid rampant inflation. Higher interest rates make everything more difficult of course - ask the auto or mortgage industries.
matthewdgreen 3y ago
I’ve now posted this three times, but I don’t think people on this site are aware of it, since we’re still seeing the same obsolete debate. China built 415 TWh of wind and solar in the first 9 months of 2023 (adjusted for capacity factor), more than the combined total of all 26 nuclear plants under construction. Based on this surge of construction, Chinese emissions are expected to begin a structural decline next year. The debate at this point isn’t about whether renewables will scale: China has already answered that question. There is a very real question about whether the West will be able to keep up. There seem to be a lot of people who want to sit around and fantasize about 1970s-era nuclear tech while our neighbors undergo what is effectively a second Industrial Revolution.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rr808 3y ago
  China is a special case because it has to import all its oil which makes it a huge strategic weakness. Wind and Solar is still a tiny part of its electricity production. You can't rely on either for cold dark winters. Its emissions are already higher than Europeans per capita and still growing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/media/File:China-electricity-prod-source-stacked.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_China#/media/File:Per_Capita_CO2_by_Region.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Ch...
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    The thing about exponential deployment curves is that, at a certain point, posting charts that end 1 to 2 years in the past is like posting charts that end in 2000. Things are moving extremely rapidly now. https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
  - rtpg 3y ago
    according to the wiki numbers, wind + solar make up 17% (with hydro being another 17%). Nothing to sneeze at! Though coal is extremely present.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  You can post it three more times and it won’t make it any less true that renewables are plagued with shortcomings regarding 24/7 uptime and massive safety issues with installation and eventual end-of-life environmental costs. 440 people die for every 1000TW of solar, compared to 90 for nuclear: https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nu... Solar panel disposal impact: https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power Renewables have a place in our energy future. Fanaticism about them does not.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Have you read what you linked to, while trying to have a skeptical eye? That article, especially when you're claiming others are fanatics, is not something you probably want to link to. "The number of deaths for every 1000TWh of energy generated by rooftop solar panels is 440. Put simply, this means that for every 1000TWh of energy produced via rooftop solar power, 440 people lose their lives. Other estimates [obfuscated hyperlink to a Forbes page] place this number to be around 150. These deaths are mostly the result of electrocution and other hazards that occur during rooftop solar panel installation (such as falling)." So they're not happy with the official statistics bureau that is Forbes and chose to stick with their uncited 440. It sounds made up to me. Searching for that exact datum actually yielded the original source [1], and yeah - it's made up. It's from a 2008 article where some guy just started hand-waving hard in a not entirely coherent fashion. A quick search for something more reasonable turns up this. [2] The data comes from multiple studies and the UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Wind/Nuclear/Solar all have pretty much the same mortality rate: 0.04/0.03/0.02 per unit of electricity, respectively. If I want to be disingenuous I can claim [accurately] that nuclear is 50% deadlier than solar (and obviously many many magnitudes deadlier per installation), but the numbers in terms of energy/watt are low enough to be irrelevant. [1] - https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...
afterburner 3y ago
Why would high interest rates not be even worse for nuclear, which requires a far larger and earlier initial capital investment?
cycomanic 3y ago
That argument doesn't make any sense. If solar profitability is affected by higher interest rates (I'm not arguing this point) nuclear would be much more effected. Nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power, they are a huge up front investment with very long ROI (incidentally they almost always require significant price guarantees over for decades and backed by the government to derisk the investment).

They are not cheaper. They appeared cheaper for a while when there was a bubble and interest rates are zero. Now wind and solar farm projects are failing.

by rr808 3y ago

They are not cheaper. They appeared cheaper for a while when there was a bubble and interest rates are zero. Now wind and solar farm projects are failing.

jayd16 3y ago

How is it that nuclear didn't benefit from the same bubble?

eru 3y ago
Mostly red tape. It's much tighter regulated, and takes longer to get any project off the ground.

r00fus 3y ago

The problem isn’t due to bubble economics but contractual fixed rates that no longer make sense given post-covid rampant inflation. Higher interest rates make everything more difficult of course - ask the auto or mortgage industries.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

I’ve now posted this three times, but I don’t think people on this site are aware of it, since we’re still seeing the same obsolete debate. China built 415 TWh of wind and solar in the first 9 months of 2023 (adjusted for capacity factor), more than the combined total of all 26 nuclear plants under construction. Based on this surge of construction, Chinese emissions are expected to begin a structural decline next year. The debate at this point isn’t about whether renewables will scale: China has already answered that question. There is a very real question about whether the West will be able to keep up. There seem to be a lot of people who want to sit around and fantasize about 1970s-era nuclear tech while our neighbors undergo what is effectively a second Industrial Revolution.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rr808 3y ago
China is a special case because it has to import all its oil which makes it a huge strategic weakness. Wind and Solar is still a tiny part of its electricity production. You can't rely on either for cold dark winters. Its emissions are already higher than Europeans per capita and still growing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/media/File:China-electricity-prod-source-stacked.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#/m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_China#/media/File:Per_Capita_CO2_by_Region.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Ch...
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  The thing about exponential deployment curves is that, at a certain point, posting charts that end 1 to 2 years in the past is like posting charts that end in 2000. Things are moving extremely rapidly now. https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-emissions-set-for-structural-decline-from-next-year https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carb...
- rtpg 3y ago
  according to the wiki numbers, wind + solar make up 17% (with hydro being another 17%). Nothing to sneeze at! Though coal is extremely present.
BenFranklin100 3y ago
You can post it three more times and it won’t make it any less true that renewables are plagued with shortcomings regarding 24/7 uptime and massive safety issues with installation and eventual end-of-life environmental costs. 440 people die for every 1000TW of solar, compared to 90 for nuclear: https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nu... Solar panel disposal impact: https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power Renewables have a place in our energy future. Fanaticism about them does not.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Have you read what you linked to, while trying to have a skeptical eye? That article, especially when you're claiming others are fanatics, is not something you probably want to link to. "The number of deaths for every 1000TWh of energy generated by rooftop solar panels is 440. Put simply, this means that for every 1000TWh of energy produced via rooftop solar power, 440 people lose their lives. Other estimates [obfuscated hyperlink to a Forbes page] place this number to be around 150. These deaths are mostly the result of electrocution and other hazards that occur during rooftop solar panel installation (such as falling)." So they're not happy with the official statistics bureau that is Forbes and chose to stick with their uncited 440. It sounds made up to me. Searching for that exact datum actually yielded the original source [1], and yeah - it's made up. It's from a 2008 article where some guy just started hand-waving hard in a not entirely coherent fashion. A quick search for something more reasonable turns up this. [2] The data comes from multiple studies and the UN Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Wind/Nuclear/Solar all have pretty much the same mortality rate: 0.04/0.03/0.02 per unit of electricity, respectively. If I want to be disingenuous I can claim [accurately] that nuclear is 50% deadlier than solar (and obviously many many magnitudes deadlier per installation), but the numbers in terms of energy/watt are low enough to be irrelevant. [1] - https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all... [2] - https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-p...

afterburner 3y ago

Why would high interest rates not be even worse for nuclear, which requires a far larger and earlier initial capital investment?

cycomanic 3y ago

That argument doesn't make any sense. If solar profitability is affected by higher interest rates (I'm not arguing this point) nuclear would be much more effected. Nuclear power is the most capital intensive form of power, they are a huge up front investment with very long ROI (incidentally they almost always require significant price guarantees over for decades and backed by the government to derisk the investment).