3 ms·

>It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. We certainly still need to get a handle on the cost of deploying nuclear because i

by mixdup 3y ago

>It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. We certainly still need to get a handle on the cost of deploying nuclear because it is not sustainable the way we do it today In 2022 Georgia Power got 23% of its power from nuclear, 1.9 gigawatts of capacity. Since construction started, Georgia Power customers have been paying the construction costs (about 6%) and now that construction is complete the rest of the costs are now being added to customer bills. These are surcharges in addition to the actual cost of fuel and operations at the plant, so they're going to be paying per kWh as well. At the same time Southern Company (parent of Georgia Power) shareholders are now receiving profits from the operations of Vogtle 3 while capital costs are recovered--IE they are not paying for the asset that they will own This 10% increase in customer bills will result in the nuclear percentage as pat of GPC's mix increasing just a few percent. It would still be lower than either Gas/Oil or Coal as of 2022's numbers (in 2023 I believe it will be higher than coal, but that is because GPC is replacing coal with gas at a rapid rate) If you replaced all fossil fuels with nuclear at the same cost structure, power bills in Georgia would increase many fold I'm completely on board with nuclear, but we have to absolutely and totally rethink the designs we build, how we manage the projects, who owns them (private vs. public) and more

survirtual 3y ago
I believe that we need a Nuclear Corps of Engineers, a publicly funded, possibly international organization like the World Bank, dedicated solely to constructing modern reactors globally. This would bring economies of scale into play, making nuclear energy more economically viable and efficient. The feasibility of such an endeavor is clear when we compare it to military spending or the costs of road construction and maintenance. Essential infrastructure often requires substantial investment, but the long-term benefits justify the expense. The idea of for-profit nuclear power has proven to be less effective. It leads to fragmented, inefficient projects and prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability and safety. A centralized, public approach like the Nuclear Corps would streamline production, enforce uniform safety standards, and reduce overall costs. This shift is not just an economic imperative but a step towards a sustainable, cooperative global energy future. It's time to rethink our approach to nuclear energy, prioritizing global benefit over private profit.
DrBazza 3y ago
I've wanted to see whether thorium reactors actually work or not. I suspect the lack of interest from western governments is because it isn't very useful for making bombs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
- pfdietz 3y ago
  No, it's because thorium doesn't solve any of the actual problems that are holding back nuclear.

by mixdup 3y ago

survirtual 3y ago

I believe that we need a Nuclear Corps of Engineers, a publicly funded, possibly international organization like the World Bank, dedicated solely to constructing modern reactors globally. This would bring economies of scale into play, making nuclear energy more economically viable and efficient. The feasibility of such an endeavor is clear when we compare it to military spending or the costs of road construction and maintenance. Essential infrastructure often requires substantial investment, but the long-term benefits justify the expense. The idea of for-profit nuclear power has proven to be less effective. It leads to fragmented, inefficient projects and prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability and safety. A centralized, public approach like the Nuclear Corps would streamline production, enforce uniform safety standards, and reduce overall costs. This shift is not just an economic imperative but a step towards a sustainable, cooperative global energy future. It's time to rethink our approach to nuclear energy, prioritizing global benefit over private profit.

DrBazza 3y ago

I've wanted to see whether thorium reactors actually work or not. I suspect the lack of interest from western governments is because it isn't very useful for making bombs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

pfdietz 3y ago
No, it's because thorium doesn't solve any of the actual problems that are holding back nuclear.