2 ms·

The final investment decision came in 2017. Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Even worse is calling it acceptab

The final investment decision came in 2017. Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Even worse is calling it acceptable to make nuclear sound feasible. Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. It is easy to see what happens when humanity finds an energy source cheaper than fossil fuels. We've dammed up almost every single river globally. Nuclear energy never became cheaper. Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. We are in for a ride as Jevons Paradox plays out its course. - CCGT plants take advantage of scale from the airline industry. - Coal is dead. - Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. Nuclear is attempting to be a more expensive coal in 2024.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Construction has a timeline. You can't install the pipes before you pour the foundation. If in year 15 you learn about a mistake you made in year 10, the plant which is three years behind you has already done the same thing. But the one that starts construction today doesn't have to do that. > Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. We built hundreds of nuclear plants that have been providing clean power for decades, and they cost significantly less to build than they do now. > Nuclear energy never became cheaper. The US and most of the world stopped building new reactors after the 1980s, largely as a result of political pressure. It can't become cheaper if you don't do it at all. > Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. And they're likely to do something interesting because their generation pattern is very different. But nobody seems able to answer what you're supposed to do if it's ever cloudy and still for a month, which actually occasionally happens. > Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. If this is all it takes then why is it limited to wind? Build reactors in a factory and put them on rail cars.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Construction has a timeline. You can't install the pipes before you pour the foundation. If in year 15 you learn about a mistake you made in year 10, the plant which is three years behind you has already done the same thing. But the one that starts construction today doesn't have to do that. > Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. We built hundreds of nuclear plants that have been providing clean power for decades, and they cost significantly less to build than they do now. > Nuclear energy never became cheaper. The US and most of the world stopped building new reactors after the 1980s, largely as a result of political pressure. It can't become cheaper if you don't do it at all. > Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. And they're likely to do something interesting because their generation pattern is very different. But nobody seems able to answer what you're supposed to do if it's ever cloudy and still for a month, which actually occasionally happens. > Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. If this is all it takes then why is it limited to wind? Build reactors in a factory and put them on rail cars.