4 ms·

It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill re

by pydry 3y ago

It isnt challenges in meeting clean energy goals that motivates politicians from both sides to give nuclear power an extra push, its the industrial and skill requirements of the nuclear-military industrial complex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629621003066 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... If clean energy were the goal, costs and speed of construction would dictate only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) be built. This is what they mean in the article when they refer to a "cost problem".

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems. > only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  If there is one thing I'd love to change about humanity, it'd be that proponents of a given solution believe exclusively in that solution. It is counter productive, creates unnecessary strife among competing solutions (competition is a good thing), and creates pseudo enemies from friends attempting to accomplish the same goal.
- pydry 3y ago
  >That’s almost an argument for nuclear power I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are I guess. I wouldnt exactly treat the maintenance and construction of nukes as a sunk cost. It is possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy. We've done it before. >Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive It's beaten by solar + wind + natural gas. Nuclear power doesnt come close to being economically competitive even with the price anderson catastrophe liability cap. It needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist. For the military, however, cost is rarely an object.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating Then we'd better move with as much speed and strength as possible in the other direction.
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      > Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. That needs a source. Not a single project in the west the past 20 years is even close.
    - pydry 3y ago
      >It depends on how realistic you are. What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? >Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. Vaporware is always competitive with reality.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? Nothing. Just that they’re about arms reduction, not elimination. You’ll still have a military nuclear sector. Also, there is zero chance this makes headway in the near term; we’re in a phase of great power competition. > Vaporware is always competitive with reality We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. For solar and wind, it’s deployment bandwidth and storage. For nuclear, it’s AP100 economies of scale. We aren’t talking SMRs, just as with solar we aren’t talking space-based or whatever.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  > Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets. That's not even close to being true. Uruguay is 100% wind + storage. 90% - 98% from wind, with 2% - 10% from hydro. The US has two advantages that Uruguay doesn't: a continental sized energy grid and a mix of wind & solar. Plus the advantage of building it out in the 2020s rather than the 2010s when both solar and batteries are an order of magnitude cheaper than they were when Uruguay was building out. California has solar + storage projects that are supplying power for 4c/kWh. That's cost competitive.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Uruguay is 100% wind + storage Uruguay pays $170/MWh [1]. That’s what power from the first-of-its-kind and hideously-delayed Vogtle nuclear power plants will cost [2]. [1] https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/ https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/ [2] https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > comparing retail price to wholesale price? Yes. If you have an adjusted price, I’d be curious. That said, we can compare the real-world France and Uruguay. On the basis of both price and cost, France runs cheaper. Obviously there are many other factors at play. But while I love Uruguay and its bold energy vision, they are not an example of wind + storage proving economically viable.
        3y ago

by pydry 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Yes, there are links between civilian and military nuclear. (That’s almost an argument for nuclear power, since the military spending is a sunk cost.) Gen III+ reactors, which China is competently constructing, get past many of those problems. > only solar, wind and storage (pumped/hydrogen/battery) Solar and wind, yes. Only solar and wind, hilariously no. Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets.

jvanderbot 3y ago
If there is one thing I'd love to change about humanity, it'd be that proponents of a given solution believe exclusively in that solution. It is counter productive, creates unnecessary strife among competing solutions (competition is a good thing), and creates pseudo enemies from friends attempting to accomplish the same goal.
pydry 3y ago
>That’s almost an argument for nuclear power I suppose. That depends how much against the NPT you are and how big a fan of extinction inducing weapons you are I guess. I wouldnt exactly treat the maintenance and construction of nukes as a sunk cost. It is possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy. We've done it before. >Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive It's beaten by solar + wind + natural gas. Nuclear power doesnt come close to being economically competitive even with the price anderson catastrophe liability cap. It needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist. For the military, however, cost is rarely an object.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > depends how much against the NPT you are It depends on how realistic you are. > possible to reduce our collective stocks through diplomacy Sure. But the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating. And coupling an entirely separate coördination problem to the already labyrinthian onr of climate change is conceding the game at the opening. > it needs to be lavished with subsidies to even exist Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > the world is currently sprinting in the opposite direction, with belligerence proliferating Then we'd better move with as much speed and strength as possible in the other direction.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    > Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. That needs a source. Not a single project in the west the past 20 years is even close.
  - pydry 3y ago
    >It depends on how realistic you are. What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? >Nope. Gen III+ reactors are competitive with solar within a few years. Vaporware is always competitive with reality.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > What is it about historic strategic arms limitations treaties that you find so unrealistic exaxtly? Nothing. Just that they’re about arms reduction, not elimination. You’ll still have a military nuclear sector. Also, there is zero chance this makes headway in the near term; we’re in a phase of great power competition. > Vaporware is always competitive with reality We’re dealing with unknowns across the board. For solar and wind, it’s deployment bandwidth and storage. For nuclear, it’s AP100 economies of scale. We aren’t talking SMRs, just as with solar we aren’t talking space-based or whatever.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
> Solar and wind + storage, in the long run, is currently not cost competitive in most markets. That's not even close to being true. Uruguay is 100% wind + storage. 90% - 98% from wind, with 2% - 10% from hydro. The US has two advantages that Uruguay doesn't: a continental sized energy grid and a mix of wind & solar. Plus the advantage of building it out in the 2020s rather than the 2010s when both solar and batteries are an order of magnitude cheaper than they were when Uruguay was building out. California has solar + storage projects that are supplying power for 4c/kWh. That's cost competitive.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Uruguay is 100% wind + storage Uruguay pays $170/MWh [1]. That’s what power from the first-of-its-kind and hideously-delayed Vogtle nuclear power plants will cost [2]. [1] https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/ https://www.global-climatescope.org/markets/uy/ [2] https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-tragedy-for-the-people-of-georgia/ https://www.powermag.com/blog/plant-vogtle-not-a-star-but-a-...
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Are you comparing retail price to wholesale price? The generation cost of power is a very small fraction of the retail price in most markets, especially in Uruguay. Distribution and paying off old debts is a massive fraction of the cost.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > comparing retail price to wholesale price? Yes. If you have an adjusted price, I’d be curious. That said, we can compare the real-world France and Uruguay. On the basis of both price and cost, France runs cheaper. Obviously there are many other factors at play. But while I love Uruguay and its bold energy vision, they are not an example of wind + storage proving economically viable.
      - 3y ago