4 ms·

You can look at the cost trajectories of various energy production technologies through time - the one for fission does not look encouraging. Interesting that y

You can look at the cost trajectories of various energy production technologies through time - the one for fission does not look encouraging. Interesting that you see costs for fission and renewable as very similar. Data I have seen has huge differences.(https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2021-01-empirically-grounded-technology-forecasts-and-the-energy-transition/ https://www.inet.ox.ac.uk/publications/no-2021-01-empiricall...) Where did I advocate batteries as only storage? There are many options. I might potentially be better to put more money into fusion rather than chase fission for anything beyond materials, medical, research, and weapons applications.

yeknoda 3y ago
The fact it is historically not encouraging is exactly why it should be encouraging for the future.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  If things don't move on costs for significant periods of time that is typically not a good sign for future cost reductions in the same technology.
  - yeknoda 3y ago
    Space launch costs? Lol
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      I'd say that is making my point.
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        Huh? Space costs didn’t go down because it was being applied in the wrong places on the wrong things. Yet the right investment by Musk applied in the right way caused space costs to plummet (well technically it started off with the Xprize trying to stimulate that space although not sure if that had any real effect). Why do you think that nuclear is some special snowflake of a technology that doesn’t get cheaper the more we do it? We don’t really build very many nuclear plants in an effective way and the only licensed design in America is a design from the 70s. SMNRs are an interesting idea worth exploring. I think molten salt would be too. The government should be pushing many players to design plants and put them through testing and then qualify some of them and commit to building like 500 of a given design and make sure each subsequent plant is built with the first design + learnings from the previous design that can reduce cost.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Yes, some new nuclear technology might shift cost curves, but other sources are already cheaper. Nuclear never had a strong fall costs that is what makes it a tougher thing because you likely need a change in technology. There are some reasonably well understood cost evolution in technology. Wanting to spend huge amounts of money in the hope that the economics will somehow work out is not an easy proposition when other things are already cheap.
vlovich123 3y ago
Re costs: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... Yes, nuclear power has gotten more expensive with time but even still, today, in absolute terms, $/khw is competitive. > Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh. Or https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45436 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45436 which shows that nuclear remains cheaper than wind and waaay cheaper than solar in California. And wind/solar prices AFAIK don’t factor in the additional cost of storage since we don’t pair wind/solar generation capacity with matching storage requirements. And in terms of why it’s gotten more expensive, part of that is naturally inflation. The other part is that nuclear keeps getting more regulations and we disinvest from building more. It’s the opposite of the Wright effect - when you build less of something and disinvest it gets more expensive to make. Some of the regulations are legit costs (e.g. making sure the plants remain safe and don’t melt down) but you’d be surprised at how much of it is BS driven by FUD (a not insignificant portion powered by FUD from fossil fuel companies who benefit from nuclear taking as long as possible). It’s also amusing to me the overlap between “renewables need more investment to replace grid fossil fuels” and “fusion instead of fission” camps. Like yes, fusion is exciting and I hope we get there some day. And we criminally underfund investment into it at government scale in the same way as we do with fission. But fusion’s road is even harder and longer out. Like we still don’t know how to generate more energy than we consume. It’s strictly in the pure research phase and is many many decades away from starting production and will take an even longer time to build out large amounts of capacity.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Check the link I posted, it has storage cost curves, too, Your second link has prices, not generation costs which is a much more difficult thing to compare. Inflation isn't specific to nuclear and regulations will continue to be part of nuclear. Over time, cheaper generation should win out - absent interventions - so nuclear isn't in a great place to start.
  - 3y ago
throwjnkjk 3y ago
The recent reduction in costs (past 20 years or so) for PV and batteries is almost entirely a function for forced labor (slavery) in China and Central Africa. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ILAB/ILAB20210624 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ILAB/ILAB20210624 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...

yeknoda 3y ago

The fact it is historically not encouraging is exactly why it should be encouraging for the future.

RandomLensman 3y ago
If things don't move on costs for significant periods of time that is typically not a good sign for future cost reductions in the same technology.
- yeknoda 3y ago
  Space launch costs? Lol
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    I'd say that is making my point.
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      Huh? Space costs didn’t go down because it was being applied in the wrong places on the wrong things. Yet the right investment by Musk applied in the right way caused space costs to plummet (well technically it started off with the Xprize trying to stimulate that space although not sure if that had any real effect). Why do you think that nuclear is some special snowflake of a technology that doesn’t get cheaper the more we do it? We don’t really build very many nuclear plants in an effective way and the only licensed design in America is a design from the 70s. SMNRs are an interesting idea worth exploring. I think molten salt would be too. The government should be pushing many players to design plants and put them through testing and then qualify some of them and commit to building like 500 of a given design and make sure each subsequent plant is built with the first design + learnings from the previous design that can reduce cost.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Yes, some new nuclear technology might shift cost curves, but other sources are already cheaper. Nuclear never had a strong fall costs that is what makes it a tougher thing because you likely need a change in technology. There are some reasonably well understood cost evolution in technology. Wanting to spend huge amounts of money in the hope that the economics will somehow work out is not an easy proposition when other things are already cheap.

vlovich123 3y ago

Re costs: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec... Yes, nuclear power has gotten more expensive with time but even still, today, in absolute terms, $/khw is competitive. > Grid-level system costs for intermittent renewables are large ($8-$50/MWh) but depend on country, context and technology (onshore wind < offshore wind < solar PV). Nuclear system costs are $1-3/MWh. Or https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45436 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=45436 which shows that nuclear remains cheaper than wind and waaay cheaper than solar in California. And wind/solar prices AFAIK don’t factor in the additional cost of storage since we don’t pair wind/solar generation capacity with matching storage requirements. And in terms of why it’s gotten more expensive, part of that is naturally inflation. The other part is that nuclear keeps getting more regulations and we disinvest from building more. It’s the opposite of the Wright effect - when you build less of something and disinvest it gets more expensive to make. Some of the regulations are legit costs (e.g. making sure the plants remain safe and don’t melt down) but you’d be surprised at how much of it is BS driven by FUD (a not insignificant portion powered by FUD from fossil fuel companies who benefit from nuclear taking as long as possible). It’s also amusing to me the overlap between “renewables need more investment to replace grid fossil fuels” and “fusion instead of fission” camps. Like yes, fusion is exciting and I hope we get there some day. And we criminally underfund investment into it at government scale in the same way as we do with fission. But fusion’s road is even harder and longer out. Like we still don’t know how to generate more energy than we consume. It’s strictly in the pure research phase and is many many decades away from starting production and will take an even longer time to build out large amounts of capacity.

RandomLensman 3y ago
Check the link I posted, it has storage cost curves, too, Your second link has prices, not generation costs which is a much more difficult thing to compare. Inflation isn't specific to nuclear and regulations will continue to be part of nuclear. Over time, cheaper generation should win out - absent interventions - so nuclear isn't in a great place to start.
- 3y ago

throwjnkjk 3y ago

The recent reduction in costs (past 20 years or so) for PV and batteries is almost entirely a function for forced labor (slavery) in China and Central Africa. https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ILAB/ILAB20210624 https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ILAB/ILAB20210624 https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893...