4 ms·

I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only prac

I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only practical solution for climate change, it's not possible to build solar or wind fast enough or cheaply enough", you can point them to this press release. All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry.

kranke155 3y ago
Could you elaborate? Having read the press release I’m not sure what you mean
- cableshaft 3y ago
  From the linked article, we get how much power it generates 1,114 MW (or 1.114 Gigawatts), how long it took to build that reactor (started in 2009, so 14 years), and how much it cost (planned $14 billion, final $30 billion): > The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor > Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) and 2017 (Vogtle 4), the project ran into significant construction delays and cost overruns. The total cost of the project is now estimated at more than $30 billion. Meanwhile: "Utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. electric power sector increased from 61 gigawatts (GW) in 2021 to 71 GW in 2022, according to data from our Electricity Power Monthly. Wind capacity grew from 133 GW in 2021 to 141 GW in 2022."[1] So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year. Also wind and solar is cheaper than the cost of nuclear energy now: "Nuclear energy is generally more expensive than wind and solar energy. The IEA report estimates the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants to be between $60 and $70 per MWh (megawatt-hour), while the cost of electricity from onshore wind and solar PV is estimated to be between $30 and $60 per MWh."[2] So wind and solar is faster and cheaper. The only main benefit is a nuclear plant can still keep generating power in inclement weather (which is still important, but doesn't make it cheaper or faster than wind and solar). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960 [2]: https://medium.com/@liam.m.obrien/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-energy-a-comprehensive-comparison-of-costs-and-benefits-15ef13b04657 https://medium.com/@liam.m.obrien/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-...
  - avidphantasm 3y ago
    > So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year. Nuclear capacity factors are over 90% [1]. Wind is around 30%, solar around 25%, so it’s really ~5 GW (solar and wind capacity added), vs. ~1 GW nuclear fission added (and we’re not trying that hard to build more nuclear plants). [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statistics.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist...
  - kevincox 3y ago
    It is quite hard to compare $60-70 for year-round super stable power to $30-60 for bursty power. That being said, unless there is a huge regulatory shift it seems like nuclear won't get much cheaper and solar and wind will continue to do so, so comparing those numbers will get easier to compare as the costs spread further.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      Which is all irrelevant, because neither is dispatchable: you get what you get when they're able to produce it.
evilos 3y ago
I mean, we know we can build nuclear plants quickly because we've done it before. It is physically possible. China and Korea can still do it today. If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political will. Which we are seeing more and more of recently. The first of a kind build is always slow.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  "If we did it before, we can do it now" is not anything close to a valid argument.
  - evilos 3y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "we". China is doing it as we speak. Also, "it's been done before" is a much better argument than "we think we can make these massive and untested changes to our society because my studies say so" like I see constantly from solar/wind maximalists on demand response, mass v2g, hyper connected grid, underground hydrogen battery etc, etc.
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      China (and Russia) have lower labor costs. This doesn't transfer to the US, unless you intend we import cheap labor to do the construction. And even in China, renewables are outpacing new nuclear construction.
cm2187 3y ago
I hear a lot of magical thinking about wind and solar too, with some magical pixie dust solving the intermittence problem but nothing practical being built at scale.
lawn 3y ago
> All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. We need a mix of low-carbon energy sources, where nuclear is an important piece (otherwise we'll have to resort to oil/gas/coal).
- TomK32 3y ago
  > > All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. > All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. Now that we have established that both sides are into magical thinking, how about just reducing energy consumption?
  - lawn 3y ago
    Hah. That's a third type of magical thinking (unfortunately).

kranke155 3y ago

Could you elaborate? Having read the press release I’m not sure what you mean

cableshaft 3y ago
From the linked article, we get how much power it generates 1,114 MW (or 1.114 Gigawatts), how long it took to build that reactor (started in 2009, so 14 years), and how much it cost (planned $14 billion, final $30 billion): > The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor > Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) and 2017 (Vogtle 4), the project ran into significant construction delays and cost overruns. The total cost of the project is now estimated at more than $30 billion. Meanwhile: "Utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. electric power sector increased from 61 gigawatts (GW) in 2021 to 71 GW in 2022, according to data from our Electricity Power Monthly. Wind capacity grew from 133 GW in 2021 to 141 GW in 2022."[1] So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year. Also wind and solar is cheaper than the cost of nuclear energy now: "Nuclear energy is generally more expensive than wind and solar energy. The IEA report estimates the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants to be between $60 and $70 per MWh (megawatt-hour), while the cost of electricity from onshore wind and solar PV is estimated to be between $30 and $60 per MWh."[2] So wind and solar is faster and cheaper. The only main benefit is a nuclear plant can still keep generating power in inclement weather (which is still important, but doesn't make it cheaper or faster than wind and solar). [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960 [2]: https://medium.com/@liam.m.obrien/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-energy-a-comprehensive-comparison-of-costs-and-benefits-15ef13b04657 https://medium.com/@liam.m.obrien/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-...
- avidphantasm 3y ago
  > So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year. Nuclear capacity factors are over 90% [1]. Wind is around 30%, solar around 25%, so it’s really ~5 GW (solar and wind capacity added), vs. ~1 GW nuclear fission added (and we’re not trying that hard to build more nuclear plants). [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statistics.php https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist...
- kevincox 3y ago
  It is quite hard to compare $60-70 for year-round super stable power to $30-60 for bursty power. That being said, unless there is a huge regulatory shift it seems like nuclear won't get much cheaper and solar and wind will continue to do so, so comparing those numbers will get easier to compare as the costs spread further.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    Which is all irrelevant, because neither is dispatchable: you get what you get when they're able to produce it.

evilos 3y ago

I mean, we know we can build nuclear plants quickly because we've done it before. It is physically possible. China and Korea can still do it today. If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political will. Which we are seeing more and more of recently. The first of a kind build is always slow.

pfdietz 3y ago
"If we did it before, we can do it now" is not anything close to a valid argument.
- evilos 3y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "we". China is doing it as we speak. Also, "it's been done before" is a much better argument than "we think we can make these massive and untested changes to our society because my studies say so" like I see constantly from solar/wind maximalists on demand response, mass v2g, hyper connected grid, underground hydrogen battery etc, etc.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    China (and Russia) have lower labor costs. This doesn't transfer to the US, unless you intend we import cheap labor to do the construction. And even in China, renewables are outpacing new nuclear construction.

cm2187 3y ago

I hear a lot of magical thinking about wind and solar too, with some magical pixie dust solving the intermittence problem but nothing practical being built at scale.

lawn 3y ago

> All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. We need a mix of low-carbon energy sources, where nuclear is an important piece (otherwise we'll have to resort to oil/gas/coal).

TomK32 3y ago
> > All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. > All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry. Now that we have established that both sides are into magical thinking, how about just reducing energy consumption?
- lawn 3y ago
  Hah. That's a third type of magical thinking (unfortunately).