3 ms·

“Build the hell out of nuclear plants” isn’t going to have any impact, and having this attitude means you aren’t informed about the state of the world. There ar

“Build the hell out of nuclear plants” isn’t going to have any impact, and having this attitude means you aren’t informed about the state of the world. There are two types of energy technology right now: those that can be constructed in a factory and deployed on an exponential curve (so far that’s solar and wind, and maybe battery storage in the future) and those that aren’t on this trajectory. Unless someone figures out modular reactors, and gets them deployed by the thousands quickly, nuclear isn’t going to matter. This chart (which I keep posting, apologies HN) helps to illustrate the dynamic: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-Dec-19-2023-7-30-19-AM.jpeg?rlkey=02v59xv0aqhiuwrdl2fgvs7e6&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-De...

mpweiher 3y ago
1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite competitive. 2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants. In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-to-build-mini-nukes-in-ukraine/ar-AA1lDv0n https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t... Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there. And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.
- matthewdgreen 3y ago
  I am not anti-nuclear. I am anti-1970s-era-nuclear because I see no path by which large bespoke concrete reactors with enormous containment vessels are going to achieve the grid transformation we need on the timescales we need it by. At least not without a WWII level of government involvement, which doesn’t seem politically practical (not even in China, which is doing better than most.) Modular reactors are at least theoretically feasible. The only question right now is whether they’ll make it from theory to multi-TW deployment before battery storage eats their economic lunch. Over a 20-30 year timeframe that’s not an easy call, though I would personally bet on batteries.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    I agree that factory-built reactors are a great way forward, and with so many companies now working on the problem, it seems very likely that at least one will make it happen. I wish we already had them, because then a lot of these discussions would be moot. However, even with the current somewhat crazy approach to building, nuclear energy is still quite competitive, and without peer for providing reliable, stable grid-level power. Which we absolutely need.
belorn 3y ago
There are three kind of power plants being built in Europe right now. Wind, gas and solar. Even in countries like Sweden the building plans and permits being given out right now is wind, gas and solar. Battery storage, nuclear and reverse hydro might be built in the future. They are all potential technology that cost too much compared to wind, gas and solar. A rather large contextual note is that wind, gas and solar get practically all the government subsidies, so there is a uphill fight if investors wanted to invest into some of the "future stuff". Wind get most subsidies, solar next, natural gas (and oil) third. Many gas and oil plants in Europe is actually government funded through out, as they operate as reserve energy. They get subsidies just to exist, and then get subsidies when they balance the grid, and last they can get subsidies again since prices during high demand and low supply can become more than the market is willing to bear.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Nuclear energy gets a enormous subsidy by the government taking about 90-99% of the risk insurance. This is for the US but equivalent laws exist in all countries. For example in Sweden it is capped to about $1.5B which is laughable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...
  - belorn 3y ago
    In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Talking about insurance in isolation is practically meaningless. Hydropower do not cover risk insurance of flooding, nor does fossil fuel pay insurance against pollution and global warming. The government or private citizens takes that risk, covering 100% of the costs. Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. In a perfect world all energy production would cover all social and environmental risks of their commercial operation. Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.

mpweiher 3y ago

1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite competitive. 2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants. In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-to-build-mini-nukes-in-ukraine/ar-AA1lDv0n https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t... Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there. And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
I am not anti-nuclear. I am anti-1970s-era-nuclear because I see no path by which large bespoke concrete reactors with enormous containment vessels are going to achieve the grid transformation we need on the timescales we need it by. At least not without a WWII level of government involvement, which doesn’t seem politically practical (not even in China, which is doing better than most.) Modular reactors are at least theoretically feasible. The only question right now is whether they’ll make it from theory to multi-TW deployment before battery storage eats their economic lunch. Over a 20-30 year timeframe that’s not an easy call, though I would personally bet on batteries.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  I agree that factory-built reactors are a great way forward, and with so many companies now working on the problem, it seems very likely that at least one will make it happen. I wish we already had them, because then a lot of these discussions would be moot. However, even with the current somewhat crazy approach to building, nuclear energy is still quite competitive, and without peer for providing reliable, stable grid-level power. Which we absolutely need.

belorn 3y ago

There are three kind of power plants being built in Europe right now. Wind, gas and solar. Even in countries like Sweden the building plans and permits being given out right now is wind, gas and solar. Battery storage, nuclear and reverse hydro might be built in the future. They are all potential technology that cost too much compared to wind, gas and solar. A rather large contextual note is that wind, gas and solar get practically all the government subsidies, so there is a uphill fight if investors wanted to invest into some of the "future stuff". Wind get most subsidies, solar next, natural gas (and oil) third. Many gas and oil plants in Europe is actually government funded through out, as they operate as reserve energy. They get subsidies just to exist, and then get subsidies when they balance the grid, and last they can get subsidies again since prices during high demand and low supply can become more than the market is willing to bear.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Nuclear energy gets a enormous subsidy by the government taking about 90-99% of the risk insurance. This is for the US but equivalent laws exist in all countries. For example in Sweden it is capped to about $1.5B which is laughable. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...
- belorn 3y ago
  In Europe the subsidies for nuclear is marginal and significant less per watt produced than wind, solar and gas. Talking about insurance in isolation is practically meaningless. Hydropower do not cover risk insurance of flooding, nor does fossil fuel pay insurance against pollution and global warming. The government or private citizens takes that risk, covering 100% of the costs. Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment. In a perfect world all energy production would cover all social and environmental risks of their commercial operation. Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.