5 ms·

>very quickly Vogtle 3 just came online in July, 17 years after the initial application was filed. Unit 4 hasn't come online yet. They're going to cost more th

>very quickly Vogtle 3 just came online in July, 17 years after the initial application was filed. Unit 4 hasn't come online yet. They're going to cost more than double the initial estimate. I just don't get the fascination with a power source that is so much more expensive and slower to bring online.

vlovich123 3y ago
Because the problems of the US regulatory systems are not endemic to the tech. The fascination is we know it should be very cost competitive (in fact cheaper than fossil fuels), can run 24/7 (not true for renewables except hydro), and can fully replace all existing fossil fuel plant use cases (not true for renewables except for hydro), and basically has as much energy as we would ever need to build (not true for hydro as there’s only so many rivers in the world and same for wind which is similarly not evenly distributed), and can be built anywhere (applies more to wind than solar but still a little true for solar). In other words a lot of proven upside and little downside. The frequently mentioned ones are safety (completely solved by next gen designs of SMRs/thorium/etc) and cost (improved by SMRs but actually largely a political self inflicted problem). Basically it and hydro are the only green tech that have shown the ability to completely displace the need for fossil fuels. With solar/wind we’re left with a hybrid grid and hoping that battery tech improves to the point where we overbuild enough solar that we can recharge batteries with excess capacity for nighttime use (the price of which is frequently ignored when discussing solar as a grid energy). In other words - it’s an open question as to solar and wind can replace base load requirements (which are substantial). If they can’t then we’re left with fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind. As we see in China, they’re building a crapton of fossil fuel (specifically coal) power plants that they will run overnight / emergency situations during the day. That’s progress but it’s a long way away from net 0. That’s why they’re also investing in their capability to build fission. that’s why you’ll see their fission projects finish on time and get cheaper over time. Fission is “more expensive” not because of the tech but because we don’t make enough of it to recoup economies of scale. You’d see the same effect with solar but because solar doesn’t pose as much threat to fossil fuels in the near term people don’t really care (it’s a very long transition period - I fully expect us to not achieve net 0 by 2100 unless we switch to nuclear). Keep in mind that solar and wind also can’t solve major transportation use cases with ships and planes which can’t be electrified (even an open question for semis but at least plausible there over time). Planes likely are the hardest but putting reactors that can’t meltdown onto ships sounds like a no brainer and would cut a huge green house gas emitter and an insane amount of pollution going into the oceans.

vlovich123 3y ago

Because the problems of the US regulatory systems are not endemic to the tech. The fascination is we know it should be very cost competitive (in fact cheaper than fossil fuels), can run 24/7 (not true for renewables except hydro), and can fully replace all existing fossil fuel plant use cases (not true for renewables except for hydro), and basically has as much energy as we would ever need to build (not true for hydro as there’s only so many rivers in the world and same for wind which is similarly not evenly distributed), and can be built anywhere (applies more to wind than solar but still a little true for solar). In other words a lot of proven upside and little downside. The frequently mentioned ones are safety (completely solved by next gen designs of SMRs/thorium/etc) and cost (improved by SMRs but actually largely a political self inflicted problem). Basically it and hydro are the only green tech that have shown the ability to completely displace the need for fossil fuels. With solar/wind we’re left with a hybrid grid and hoping that battery tech improves to the point where we overbuild enough solar that we can recharge batteries with excess capacity for nighttime use (the price of which is frequently ignored when discussing solar as a grid energy). In other words - it’s an open question as to solar and wind can replace base load requirements (which are substantial). If they can’t then we’re left with fossil fuels, nuclear, and wind. As we see in China, they’re building a crapton of fossil fuel (specifically coal) power plants that they will run overnight / emergency situations during the day. That’s progress but it’s a long way away from net 0. That’s why they’re also investing in their capability to build fission. that’s why you’ll see their fission projects finish on time and get cheaper over time. Fission is “more expensive” not because of the tech but because we don’t make enough of it to recoup economies of scale. You’d see the same effect with solar but because solar doesn’t pose as much threat to fossil fuels in the near term people don’t really care (it’s a very long transition period - I fully expect us to not achieve net 0 by 2100 unless we switch to nuclear). Keep in mind that solar and wind also can’t solve major transportation use cases with ships and planes which can’t be electrified (even an open question for semis but at least plausible there over time). Planes likely are the hardest but putting reactors that can’t meltdown onto ships sounds like a no brainer and would cut a huge green house gas emitter and an insane amount of pollution going into the oceans.