3 ms·

This misses nuance. Nuclear is brilliant in providing baseline power, but at the same time it's often extremely expensive when compared to the lifetime cost of

This misses nuance. Nuclear is brilliant in providing baseline power, but at the same time it's often extremely expensive when compared to the lifetime cost of other options, especially renewables. The ideal setup would be to strike a good balance between the two that covers demand without being prohibitively expensive. Where that balance lies is a topic of constant and loaded debate.

MasterYoda900 3y ago
Small Modular Reactors (SMR) to the rescue: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-...
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Which has been an idea the nuclear industry has continuously been pushing for the last 70 years whenever large scale reactors become too expensive. It has never panned out. Most recently the company furthest along the licensing process, NuScale, cancelled their project in Utah due to spiraling cost increases, before they even started to build. THE FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
  - hef19898 3y ago
    True small nuclear reactors have never been tried! /s
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    Wind has been used for hundreds of years and only recently started being relevant on a system-wide scale, so I don't think it's good argument. In both cases, the underlying technology has worked for a while, and the challenges are only tangentially related (NIMBY, lack of production scale, scaremongering for nuclear), but solveable.
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      If converting entire countries electricity grids to nuclear, while failing to lower costs, is not enough, what scale do you propose? How many trillions of dollars in subsidies to give nuclear "one more chance"? All while we have solutions, on the market, that are cheaper, faster and easier to deploy. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... This study does not include their most recent attempt at Flamanville. > Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007. The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months. The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        One basic cost problem is that nuclear power plants are built as one-of-a-kind. If they were built in serial production, the costs could be brought down significantly. But this is all heavily related to the scaremongering and hysterical opposition to anything nuclear (serial production -> smaller sites -> more NIMYism...). If everything was rosy in the renewables, then why not. But we don't have storage, we don't have high-capacity long-range (thousands of kms) energy network, most of the production capacity is in China ... Both directions have its risks, I think a wise choice would be to pursue both to avoid putting all eggs into one basket.
konschubert 3y ago
You can let the market figure that out. No need to debate.
- Etheryte 3y ago
  The thing is, there is no pure market in the energy sector. Everything is controlled by subsidies, government zoning for projects, political power plays and so on.
  - konschubert 3y ago
    True. I think we would end up with a more efficient and also greener energy system removed more of these subsidies and zoning restrictions and instead used futures markets to somewhat shield consumers from extreme power price spikes.
glimshe 3y ago
A large portion of the country can't realistically or cost effectively build enough renewable plants to provide reliable energy in all seasons. With current and foreseeable technology, only nuclear can provide the guarantees we need - this of course doesn't prevent renewable investments, but it will be a fatal mistake to not build nuclear plants under the impression that we can just build renewable options instead.
- varelse 3y ago
  [dead]

MasterYoda900 3y ago

Small Modular Reactors (SMR) to the rescue: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-...

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Which has been an idea the nuclear industry has continuously been pushing for the last 70 years whenever large scale reactors become too expensive. It has never panned out. Most recently the company furthest along the licensing process, NuScale, cancelled their project in Utah due to spiraling cost increases, before they even started to build. THE FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc...
- hef19898 3y ago
  True small nuclear reactors have never been tried! /s
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  Wind has been used for hundreds of years and only recently started being relevant on a system-wide scale, so I don't think it's good argument. In both cases, the underlying technology has worked for a while, and the challenges are only tangentially related (NIMBY, lack of production scale, scaremongering for nuclear), but solveable.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    If converting entire countries electricity grids to nuclear, while failing to lower costs, is not enough, what scale do you propose? How many trillions of dollars in subsidies to give nuclear "one more chance"? All while we have solutions, on the market, that are cheaper, faster and easier to deploy. The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... This study does not include their most recent attempt at Flamanville. > Construction on a new reactor, Flamanville 3, began on 4 December 2007. The new unit is an Areva European Pressurized Reactor type and is planned to have a nameplate capacity of 1,650 MWe. EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months. The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      One basic cost problem is that nuclear power plants are built as one-of-a-kind. If they were built in serial production, the costs could be brought down significantly. But this is all heavily related to the scaremongering and hysterical opposition to anything nuclear (serial production -> smaller sites -> more NIMYism...). If everything was rosy in the renewables, then why not. But we don't have storage, we don't have high-capacity long-range (thousands of kms) energy network, most of the production capacity is in China ... Both directions have its risks, I think a wise choice would be to pursue both to avoid putting all eggs into one basket.

konschubert 3y ago

You can let the market figure that out. No need to debate.

Etheryte 3y ago
The thing is, there is no pure market in the energy sector. Everything is controlled by subsidies, government zoning for projects, political power plays and so on.
- konschubert 3y ago
  True. I think we would end up with a more efficient and also greener energy system removed more of these subsidies and zoning restrictions and instead used futures markets to somewhat shield consumers from extreme power price spikes.

glimshe 3y ago

A large portion of the country can't realistically or cost effectively build enough renewable plants to provide reliable energy in all seasons. With current and foreseeable technology, only nuclear can provide the guarantees we need - this of course doesn't prevent renewable investments, but it will be a fatal mistake to not build nuclear plants under the impression that we can just build renewable options instead.

varelse 3y ago
[dead]