4 ms·

The value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated

The value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated more cheaply, of which in any case no plausible signs are evident.

Georgelemental 3y ago
Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)
- angiosperm 3y ago
  I.e., with massive government subsidy, hidden behind opaque accounting. China has constructed more solar and wind generating capacity in the past year than its entire fleet of nukes will produce after they have finished building them. China is less interested in power production from their nukes than strategic isotopes.
  - billytetrud 3y ago
    Are you blind? The only reason we have so much solar and wind is because of massive subsidies.
    - angiosperm 3y ago
      Solar and wind are now much cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies. E.g. it is cheaper to build a new solar farm and switch over to it than to continue using an existing coal plant. The only reason massive subsidies for renewables continue is to accelerate build-out to address the looming climate catastrophe. We need to ramp up to building out a TW of new renewable capacity every year.
      - zdragnar 3y ago
        Solar and wind are subsidized by everything else that puts electricity into the grid when the sky is dark or calm. They are a supplement to, not a straight replacement for, nuclear or gas or anything else. Factor in the cost of filling in the gaps, and solar and wind don't come out ahead.
      - billytetrud 3y ago
        I'd like you to concede that your snarky comment about subsidies implies things that are incorrect. Nuclear is not subsidized and has never been widely subsidized. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
        natmaka 3y ago
        In France this is false: nuclear always obtained heavily (albeit indirectly) subsidies: the R&D was public, it was built by a public monopoly using public money and money borrowed thanks to the state vouching for it... Financial effect of renewables in Europe: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
        billytetrud 3y ago
        No one was talking about France. angiosperm snarkily implied that Nuclear only works if its subsidized. He's clearly wrong. The fact that France does subsidize it isn't relevant. Nuclear in the US is not subsidized and yet is massively more cost effective than fossil fuel power plants.
        natmaka 3y ago
        The larger debate is way less clear-cut than your assertion, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Subsidies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Comparisons_with_other_power_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... The civilian nuclear industry stemmed from massive military investments, which were a way to subsidize it. "In the United States, the federal government has paid US$145 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($85 billion) and fossil fuels ($60 billion) from 1950 to 2016" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United...) The very PWR reactor exists thanks to the US Army desire of nuclear subs, which paid all associated R&D (Westinghouse then adapted it to the civilian on-shore market). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Hist... Nowadays the sole direct federal energy support "peaked in FY 2021 at over $500 million" ( https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd... ) There is no secret here: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-via... https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_s... Nuclear enjoys massive tax reduction Cost effectiveness will be established after the last hot waste of the last decommissioned plant will be cold. In the meantime any serious accident or waste particle wandering around may induce costs.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. Wait, what? Other than solar (for obvious reasons), renewables can run 24/7/365, and that's extremely common; as an example, the Itaipu power plant has run continuously since 1984, and it only powered down once in 2009, when several of the transmission lines taking power from it failed at nearly the same time due to lightning.
  - billytetrud 3y ago
    Solar doesn't. Wind doesn't. Hydro does (usually). You know he was talking about solar and wind. Why are you being a turd? Hydro is tapped, we can't build significantly more hydro in this world.

Georgelemental 3y ago

Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)

angiosperm 3y ago
I.e., with massive government subsidy, hidden behind opaque accounting. China has constructed more solar and wind generating capacity in the past year than its entire fleet of nukes will produce after they have finished building them. China is less interested in power production from their nukes than strategic isotopes.
- billytetrud 3y ago
  Are you blind? The only reason we have so much solar and wind is because of massive subsidies.
  - angiosperm 3y ago
    Solar and wind are now much cheaper than alternatives, even without subsidies. E.g. it is cheaper to build a new solar farm and switch over to it than to continue using an existing coal plant. The only reason massive subsidies for renewables continue is to accelerate build-out to address the looming climate catastrophe. We need to ramp up to building out a TW of new renewable capacity every year.
    - zdragnar 3y ago
      Solar and wind are subsidized by everything else that puts electricity into the grid when the sky is dark or calm. They are a supplement to, not a straight replacement for, nuclear or gas or anything else. Factor in the cost of filling in the gaps, and solar and wind don't come out ahead.
    - billytetrud 3y ago
      I'd like you to concede that your snarky comment about subsidies implies things that are incorrect. Nuclear is not subsidized and has never been widely subsidized. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/energy-subsidies.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
      - natmaka 3y ago
        In France this is false: nuclear always obtained heavily (albeit indirectly) subsidies: the R&D was public, it was built by a public monopoly using public money and money borrowed thanks to the state vouching for it... Financial effect of renewables in Europe: https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/how-much-money-are-european-consumers-saving-thanks-to-renewables https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-j...
        billytetrud 3y ago
        No one was talking about France. angiosperm snarkily implied that Nuclear only works if its subsidized. He's clearly wrong. The fact that France does subsidize it isn't relevant. Nuclear in the US is not subsidized and yet is massively more cost effective than fossil fuel power plants.
        natmaka 3y ago
        The larger debate is way less clear-cut than your assertion, check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_debate#Subsidies and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#Comparisons_with_other_power_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... The civilian nuclear industry stemmed from massive military investments, which were a way to subsidize it. "In the United States, the federal government has paid US$145 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($85 billion) and fossil fuels ($60 billion) from 1950 to 2016" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies_in_the_United...) The very PWR reactor exists thanks to the US Army desire of nuclear subs, which paid all associated R&D (Westinghouse then adapted it to the civilian on-shore market). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor#Hist... Nowadays the sole direct federal energy support "peaked in FY 2021 at over $500 million" ( https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pd... ) There is no secret here: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-viable-without-subsidies https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nuclear-power-still-not-via... https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_report.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_s... Nuclear enjoys massive tax reduction Cost effectiveness will be established after the last hot waste of the last decommissioned plant will be cold. In the meantime any serious accident or waste particle wandering around may induce costs.
cesarb 3y ago
> Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. Wait, what? Other than solar (for obvious reasons), renewables can run 24/7/365, and that's extremely common; as an example, the Itaipu power plant has run continuously since 1984, and it only powered down once in 2009, when several of the transmission lines taking power from it failed at nearly the same time due to lightning.
- billytetrud 3y ago
  Solar doesn't. Wind doesn't. Hydro does (usually). You know he was talking about solar and wind. Why are you being a turd? Hydro is tapped, we can't build significantly more hydro in this world.