4 ms·

The nuclear industry has had trillions of dollars worth of subsidies thrown at it for coming up on a century and it has done nothing but get more expensive. We

The nuclear industry has had trillions of dollars worth of subsidies thrown at it for coming up on a century and it has done nothing but get more expensive. We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind.

ewweezdsd 3y ago
The problem with solar and wind is that you also need to build sufficient storage infra for those days when it's cloudy and not windy.
- ben_w 3y ago
  That's about the same price as nuclear. That's not because storage had a mystery breakthrough in price you missed, it's just that nuclear is that expensive.
vlovich123 3y ago
Source? Subsidies are hard to define and measure of course & even harder to compare across technologies, but renewables have definitely seen a trillion dollars worth of subsidies already (it was getting $200 billion a year since 2016 & that's not when subsidies started). According to [1] we get more energy output for every $ invested in nuclear than we do wind or solar. > We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind. I guess me and you disagree in that I view nuclear as proven, safe [2] & highly distributable (the Candian nuclear reactor is in many countries). There's a lot of FUD around nuclear & a not insignificant amount of it is funded by oil companies because they recognize how big a threat nuclear is to them [3]. It's aided by the fact that there may be legitimate security concerns although it's really hard to separate that from fear mongering to maintain the current status quo world order based around oil. > Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die. Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die. So nuclear sits roughly between solar & wind in terms of deaths to generate said power & this includes all nuclear accidents (& of course single large scale events distort the typical deaths observed whereas solar & wind are baseline deaths that doesn't really change with improved tech as it does with nuclear). There's no safer, cheaper & as scalable a technology to wean off of fossil fuels. I wish there were & it would be nice if solar & wind were that, but they're not. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=4d841a1e7453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
- jmyeet 3y ago
  If there are two things I've learned from these discussions it's that: 1. Nuclear advocates always talk about capital costs of building nuclear plants but never operational costs because the LCOE of nuclear fission energy is terrible and incrasing [1] 2. Nuclear advocates like to talk about deaths because that's highly favorable to nuclear rather than, say, clean up costs. Nuclear disasters get hand-waved away even though we've had multiple of them despite there only being ~700 nuclear plants built. Chernobyl is hand-waved away because USSR. But what about Fukushima? Japan is a developed and regulated country. Tsunamis happen. So far $82 billion has been spent on the Fukushima clean up with no end in sight [2]. The final cost will probably exceed $1 trillion and take decades, maybe a century or more. The site requires active cooling still, which is where all the continaminated wastewater comes from, and the technology to clean up the core does not exist with no viable plan in sight. And that's from one nuclear power incident. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku...
  - EmmaEngineer 3y ago
    The nuclear deaths, unlike all the other sources, also ignores rest of system deaths (e.g. mining, enrichment, transport, construction and decommissioning accidents). Once you include those it looks far more like gas and oil than wind and solar (which invariably include the kitchen sink on the death toll). If you wanted to put solar on a level field with nuclear you'd only include deaths from skin cancer directly attributable to installation.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      My understanding is that those numbers for solar are installation and maintenance costs. They don’t include things like constructing the panels, mining the raw materials to make panels etc. additionally, to be comparable to nuclear, solar needs insane amounts of batteries so then you start having to include cobalt mining. There’s no perfect comparison possible because it’s an interconnected system. We still use fossil fuels to build and transport solar cells for example, so what the “true” number is is very hazy and hard to quantify. The point is nuclear and solar do not compete in the same league. Nuclear competes with coal, natural gas, and hydro. Electricity sources that have 24h reliable generation capabilities. Hydro is arguably the safest but it is quite ecologically destructive and also limited as to where you can do it.

ewweezdsd 3y ago

The problem with solar and wind is that you also need to build sufficient storage infra for those days when it's cloudy and not windy.

ben_w 3y ago
That's about the same price as nuclear. That's not because storage had a mystery breakthrough in price you missed, it's just that nuclear is that expensive.

vlovich123 3y ago

Source? Subsidies are hard to define and measure of course & even harder to compare across technologies, but renewables have definitely seen a trillion dollars worth of subsidies already (it was getting $200 billion a year since 2016 & that's not when subsidies started). According to [1] we get more energy output for every $ invested in nuclear than we do wind or solar. > We can't afford to pour more money into maybes when we have proven, simple, extremely safe, highly distributable technologies like solar and wind. I guess me and you disagree in that I view nuclear as proven, safe [2] & highly distributable (the Candian nuclear reactor is in many countries). There's a lot of FUD around nuclear & a not insignificant amount of it is funded by oil companies because they recognize how big a threat nuclear is to them [3]. It's aided by the fact that there may be legitimate security concerns although it's really hard to separate that from fear mongering to maintain the current status quo world order based around oil. > Wind: In an average year, nobody would die. A death rate of 0.04 deaths per terawatt-hour means every 25 years, a single person would die; Nuclear: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 33 years would someone die. Solar: In an average year, nobody would die – only every 50 years would someone die. So nuclear sits roughly between solar & wind in terms of deaths to generate said power & this includes all nuclear accidents (& of course single large scale events distort the typical deaths observed whereas solar & wind are baseline deaths that doesn't really change with improved tech as it does with nuclear). There's no safer, cheaper & as scalable a technology to wean off of fossil fuels. I wish there were & it would be nice if solar & wind were that, but they're not. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=4d841a1e7453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...

jmyeet 3y ago
If there are two things I've learned from these discussions it's that: 1. Nuclear advocates always talk about capital costs of building nuclear plants but never operational costs because the LCOE of nuclear fission energy is terrible and incrasing [1] 2. Nuclear advocates like to talk about deaths because that's highly favorable to nuclear rather than, say, clean up costs. Nuclear disasters get hand-waved away even though we've had multiple of them despite there only being ~700 nuclear plants built. Chernobyl is hand-waved away because USSR. But what about Fukushima? Japan is a developed and regulated country. Tsunamis happen. So far $82 billion has been spent on the Fukushima clean up with no end in sight [2]. The final cost will probably exceed $1 trillion and take decades, maybe a century or more. The site requires active cooling still, which is where all the continaminated wastewater comes from, and the technology to clean up the core does not exist with no viable plan in sight. And that's from one nuclear power incident. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2]: https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku...
- EmmaEngineer 3y ago
  The nuclear deaths, unlike all the other sources, also ignores rest of system deaths (e.g. mining, enrichment, transport, construction and decommissioning accidents). Once you include those it looks far more like gas and oil than wind and solar (which invariably include the kitchen sink on the death toll). If you wanted to put solar on a level field with nuclear you'd only include deaths from skin cancer directly attributable to installation.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    My understanding is that those numbers for solar are installation and maintenance costs. They don’t include things like constructing the panels, mining the raw materials to make panels etc. additionally, to be comparable to nuclear, solar needs insane amounts of batteries so then you start having to include cobalt mining. There’s no perfect comparison possible because it’s an interconnected system. We still use fossil fuels to build and transport solar cells for example, so what the “true” number is is very hazy and hard to quantify. The point is nuclear and solar do not compete in the same league. Nuclear competes with coal, natural gas, and hydro. Electricity sources that have 24h reliable generation capabilities. Hydro is arguably the safest but it is quite ecologically destructive and also limited as to where you can do it.