4 ms·

So many nuclear proponents, including a large number of people here on HN, make the mistake of looking at relative costs and capabilities of power generation so

So many nuclear proponents, including a large number of people here on HN, make the mistake of looking at relative costs and capabilities of power generation sources from 10 or even 5 years ago and then forming positions based on that. As the article points out, this is just straight-up bad thinking. Any new nuclear project is realistically going to take a minimum of 6 years to reach commercial production, compared to about 2 for a large-scale renewable + storage project. So any honest evaluation needs to look at the trends and project them out to 2030, and then form a conclusion about which is the better choice. In most (not all) cases, renewable + storage wins easily.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> In most (not all) cases, renewable + storage wins easily. We don't live in a free market. As the article notes, coal towns - among other places - seem to be excited by SMNR. I can easily see politicians earmarking billions for old coal plants to become SMNRs even if it doesn't make sense financially, and putting windmills or solar or whatever would be more economical, create more jobs, etc. Where there's a political will, there's a way. Economics only matter so much. Think of the amount of value that can be created in a private company by the government overpaying a bit for electricity for SMNRs to be built. When you're looking at that amount of wealth, someone is going to buy the right politicians. This is how the system works. Not what actually makes physical sense.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Let's see and wait if these SMRs ever materialize in any number that matters.
bobim 3y ago
Any comparison is nevertheless flawed as we are not paying for the 100 000 years long problem that nuclear creates. We act here in the same way we are doing with fossil energy: we live the good life now and let generations to come pay our bill. Nuclear is the only way we can continue to sustain our growth-based society, no wonder billionaires are backing it up. Instead we should face our responsibility and stop creating problems for our kids. Walk, don’t eat meat, be happy with what we have.
gary_0 3y ago
> a minimum of 6 years to reach commercial production Which is optimistic. The current track record for the US is about 10 years: https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-online-georgia/ https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-o...
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  And that 10 years excludes possible decades of planning, creating and approving a proposal.
yeknoda 3y ago
You are doing the same thing I think, projecting past nuclear costs into the future, and assuming past cost reductions for solar and wind. In any case, you are not correct about the timelines for renewable and storage. The average time to get an approved grid interconnect is 4 years. And all these power projects can take 5-8 years to deliver. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-us-electrical-grid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-...
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> compared to about 2 for a large-scale renewable + storage project Fantasy sources are always going to beat real sources. Realistically.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> In most (not all) cases, renewable + storage wins easily. We don't live in a free market. As the article notes, coal towns - among other places - seem to be excited by SMNR. I can easily see politicians earmarking billions for old coal plants to become SMNRs even if it doesn't make sense financially, and putting windmills or solar or whatever would be more economical, create more jobs, etc. Where there's a political will, there's a way. Economics only matter so much. Think of the amount of value that can be created in a private company by the government overpaying a bit for electricity for SMNRs to be built. When you're looking at that amount of wealth, someone is going to buy the right politicians. This is how the system works. Not what actually makes physical sense.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Let's see and wait if these SMRs ever materialize in any number that matters.

bobim 3y ago

Any comparison is nevertheless flawed as we are not paying for the 100 000 years long problem that nuclear creates. We act here in the same way we are doing with fossil energy: we live the good life now and let generations to come pay our bill. Nuclear is the only way we can continue to sustain our growth-based society, no wonder billionaires are backing it up. Instead we should face our responsibility and stop creating problems for our kids. Walk, don’t eat meat, be happy with what we have.

gary_0 3y ago

> a minimum of 6 years to reach commercial production Which is optimistic. The current track record for the US is about 10 years: https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-online-georgia/ https://grist.org/energy/first-us-nuclear-reactor-40-years-o...

bryanlarsen 3y ago
And that 10 years excludes possible decades of planning, creating and approving a proposal.

yeknoda 3y ago

You are doing the same thing I think, projecting past nuclear costs into the future, and assuming past cost reductions for solar and wind. In any case, you are not correct about the timelines for renewable and storage. The average time to get an approved grid interconnect is 4 years. And all these power projects can take 5-8 years to deliver. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-us-electrical-grid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/climate/renewable-energy-...

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> compared to about 2 for a large-scale renewable + storage project Fantasy sources are always going to beat real sources. Realistically.