4 ms·

A little bit silly to compare the price of solar and batteries, which has been driven down due to extensive government subsidy, tax incentives, and massive econ

by avalys 3y ago

A little bit silly to compare the price of solar and batteries, which has been driven down due to extensive government subsidy, tax incentives, and massive economies of scale over the past few decades (including production in China), to the current estimated cost of nuclear plants that we have almost no experience building anymore. If we embarked on a sustained plan to invest in nuclear the way we have in solar and wind, nuclear's all-in cost would be far cheaper. I guarantee it.

dalyons 3y ago
And I “guarantee” the opposite. Nuclear is fundamentally massive complicated technology that just wouldn’t benefit from cost reductions due to manufacturing scale in the same degree. Solar is so so simple in comparison, that’s why it’s gotten so cheap and will continue to get cheaper. Maybe after 10 years of massively scaled nuke production we get costs down 2-4x . That would be nice but solar is down 30x and still dropping.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Exactly. Furthermore, it's not like we can go back 40 years and make stronger investments in nuclear from back then. The need to decarbonize is so massive right now that it doesn't make sense to invest a ton in technology that will only be "ready" in 2055. By that time renewables (and the storage infrastructure that will be required) will have an insurmountable lead unless large scale fusion becomes viable.
- 5thaccount 3y ago
  [dead]
mdorazio 3y ago
No. The US has subsidized the hell out of nuclear historically [1] and also in recent years [2]. Without subsidies, commercial nuclear development would never have happened in the first place and we would be shutting down plants faster than we already are because of economics. This also excludes all the VC money that has flowed into nuclear startups. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52 https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52 [2] https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-establishes-6-billion-program-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear-energy-infrastructure https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-establishes-6-billion-pr...

by avalys 3y ago

dalyons 3y ago

And I “guarantee” the opposite. Nuclear is fundamentally massive complicated technology that just wouldn’t benefit from cost reductions due to manufacturing scale in the same degree. Solar is so so simple in comparison, that’s why it’s gotten so cheap and will continue to get cheaper. Maybe after 10 years of massively scaled nuke production we get costs down 2-4x . That would be nice but solar is down 30x and still dropping.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Exactly. Furthermore, it's not like we can go back 40 years and make stronger investments in nuclear from back then. The need to decarbonize is so massive right now that it doesn't make sense to invest a ton in technology that will only be "ready" in 2055. By that time renewables (and the storage infrastructure that will be required) will have an insurmountable lead unless large scale fusion becomes viable.
5thaccount 3y ago
[dead]

mdorazio 3y ago

No. The US has subsidized the hell out of nuclear historically [1] and also in recent years [2]. Without subsidies, commercial nuclear development would never have happened in the first place and we would be shutting down plants faster than we already are because of economics. This also excludes all the VC money that has flowed into nuclear startups. [1] https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52 https://www.gao.gov/products/emd-79-52 [2] https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-establishes-6-billion-program-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear-energy-infrastructure https://www.energy.gov/articles/doe-establishes-6-billion-pr...