4 ms·

> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly.

> At any time from 1970 to today, reducing standards to allow more nuclear development would cause a net reduction in carcinogens because coal dust is deadly. It's not a debate about coal vs nuclear. Nuclear is better than coal, but worse than renewables.

roenxi 3y ago
I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0) but nuclear can deliver a lot more bang for buck. There is a two pronged argument against nuclear, one prong the somewhat ignorant argument that the risk is excessive and the other argument that it costs too much. If we use evidence and handle the risk to a sane standard, it is reasonable to expect it'll be dirt cheap and the other argument falls away. People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. All the places that have heavily invested in solar have gut-wrenchingly high electricity prices. If nuclear was given a fair shot it's got a great chance of winning the fight for the power source with the best cost-benifit ratio.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. You believe that nuclear is paying too much, but the truth is that it's paying too little. In France, the US and Sweden the money set aside to handle waste and decommissioning or restitution of old plants is underfinanced by as much as 50%, meaning half the money is missing. In all countries operating nuclear power, there is a growing hidden debt. France recently paid over 50 billion euros on their debt when they nationalized EDF, but it's not enough. These costs, and a myriad of other costs, are never included in estimates for nuclear power, because it's regulated in the contract for the operator that they don't have to pay it. Taxpayers pay it. So when you are looking at the cost of nuclear power, you are often looking at the contracted price that the operator is liable for, but not the true, full cost of actually operating nuclear power. Recently this arrangement has been reconsidered in many countries, so when you look at any estimates of what new nuclear will cost it has almost doubled in the past few years. This is entirely because a little bit more of the actual cost of nuclear has to be paid by the operators instead of the governments. >People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. IEA has recently stated that Solar is the cheapest electricity ever: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit... Here is a list of solar plants selling power for as little as 1 cent per kwh, 2 cents being common: https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-... So, no lies here. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that solar has fallen in price so fast that if you are looking at data from 5-6 years ago you're looking at bad data. Also worth noting is that the average price of electricity in Germany, who has invested heavily in Solar, was lower than in France for all of 2023. Do you have an example of a place with lots of solar that has high electricity prices?

roenxi 3y ago

I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. Nuclear is uncompetitive but still in the conversation at the current absurdist standard. It'd be an easy winner on a realistic standard. The harm of nuclear and solar is similar (on average, about 0) but nuclear can deliver a lot more bang for buck. There is a two pronged argument against nuclear, one prong the somewhat ignorant argument that the risk is excessive and the other argument that it costs too much. If we use evidence and handle the risk to a sane standard, it is reasonable to expect it'll be dirt cheap and the other argument falls away. People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. All the places that have heavily invested in solar have gut-wrenchingly high electricity prices. If nuclear was given a fair shot it's got a great chance of winning the fight for the power source with the best cost-benifit ratio.

Kon5ole 3y ago
>I suppose my point here is that if we should hold nuclear to a reasonable standard of harm - say an order of magnitude less harm then we are presently living under - then the economics of nuclear will likely crush solar. You believe that nuclear is paying too much, but the truth is that it's paying too little. In France, the US and Sweden the money set aside to handle waste and decommissioning or restitution of old plants is underfinanced by as much as 50%, meaning half the money is missing. In all countries operating nuclear power, there is a growing hidden debt. France recently paid over 50 billion euros on their debt when they nationalized EDF, but it's not enough. These costs, and a myriad of other costs, are never included in estimates for nuclear power, because it's regulated in the contract for the operator that they don't have to pay it. Taxpayers pay it. So when you are looking at the cost of nuclear power, you are often looking at the contracted price that the operator is liable for, but not the true, full cost of actually operating nuclear power. Recently this arrangement has been reconsidered in many countries, so when you look at any estimates of what new nuclear will cost it has almost doubled in the past few years. This is entirely because a little bit more of the actual cost of nuclear has to be paid by the operators instead of the governments. >People say solar is cheaper but they seem to by lying. IEA has recently stated that Solar is the cheapest electricity ever: https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricit... Here is a list of solar plants selling power for as little as 1 cent per kwh, 2 cents being common: https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-... So, no lies here. One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that solar has fallen in price so fast that if you are looking at data from 5-6 years ago you're looking at bad data. Also worth noting is that the average price of electricity in Germany, who has invested heavily in Solar, was lower than in France for all of 2023. Do you have an example of a place with lots of solar that has high electricity prices?