4 ms·

> IMHO this podcast is way too biased in favor of nuclear, and exemplifies the entire problem with the nuclear industry: too much magical thinking and not enoug

> IMHO this podcast is way too biased in favor of nuclear, and exemplifies the entire problem with the nuclear industry: too much magical thinking and not enough hard retrospective self-criticism. Why do things have to be balanced or unbiased? The anti-nuclear folks have their platforms, why can't the pro-nuclear people have theirs? It is "biased" because it is run by a nuclear advocate? But given they had a three-part series on the problems and what went wrong with Vogtle, it's not like they're trying to hide everything under the rug. A little while ago they published a video on a debate with an anti-nuclear individual: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfL40rSFT00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfL40rSFT00 > Take for example when Jigar Shah went on their podcast. I have not gotten to that episode (yet?), but have heard Shah on podcasts like Odd Lots discussing his work more generally. > IMHO, I'd bet 10:1 that it will be wasted money that would be better spent on batteries and solar, but when it comes to subsidies and government spending, money is not actually fungible, so I support more shots on goal, even if they are very very long shots) As someone who lives in Ontario (same as Decouple host), my experience with renewables haven't exactly been thrilling (click on "Supply"): * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data Every time wind goes down (including down to zero), (natural/methane) gas generators tend to have to be powered up (putting junk into the atmosphre). I'd rather we just build more CANDUs for base load and let hydro take up more of the variable load.

epistasis 3y ago
Sure, have a pro-nuclear platform, but it would actually be productive it it attempted to improve the field instead of tilting at windmills of political goals. That's the difference between the success of renewables and the failures of nuclear. The renewable folks went out and built the stuff, made it scale, and fixed the problems. The nuclear folks are star-gazing, hoping and dreaming, without executing at all.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > Sure, have a pro-nuclear platform, but it would actually be productive it it attempted to improve the field instead of tilting at windmills of political goals. If there are factual issues with what they say, feel free to post a comment correcting them. Just because something is (allegedly) "biased" does not make it wrong. > That's the difference between the success of renewables and the failures of nuclear. There's also a difference between the failures (and inadequacies) of renewables and the success of nuclear: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply When wind goes to zero at night (which it has done in Ontario), what are the options for keeping people warm in January and cool in July?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    There's no point in correcting factual errors because what they are attempting isn't even directed towards something that improves the chances of nuclear getting deployed. The decisions that will determine how many new AP1000s get ordered in the US or BWRX300s get ordered in Canada come down to financial and logistical and contractual issues around their construction. The decisions will be made in utility board rooms, not in the court of public opinion. To improve those chances, there needs to be serious introspection on how to drive down construction costs, prevent construction delays, etc. etc. etc. Maybe there are regulatory changes that could help, but I'll be damned if the show ever talks about those in concrete constructive ways, instead regulations are merely an obstacle and an excuse for failure. In the renewable space, the hurdles are talked about in ways that they can be overcome, addressed, side stepped. In the nuclear podcast promotion space, the hurdles are immovable, somebody else's fault, and an excuse for the failure of current projects. I never hear a podcast about renewables extolling the nature of solar tech as something that just needs to be done because the tech is so cool, or repeating the failures of nuclear tech as inherent to the technology, because that's a pointless waste of time. Yet that sort of navel gazing is the only type of pro-nuclear podcast I have ever found, of about five that I have stumbled on over the years. Nuclear does not need any more cheerleaders. It needs more hackers.
    - throw0101d 3y ago
      > To improve those chances, there needs to be serious introspection on how to drive down construction costs, prevent construction delays, etc. etc. etc. Build the same designs repeatedly. No other major changes need to be made IMHO. It worked for France, Ontario, and Japan ((A)BWRs consistently built in 4-5 years)[1] in the past, and it works for every modern widget we produce in factories now. Ontario's refurbishment is on-time and on-budget because of a repeatable process: * https://archive.today/xoQDQ https://archive.today/xoQDQ / https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-darlington-nuclear-generating-station-refurbishment/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-darlington-... And sometimes not only on-time, but finishing early: * https://www.ebmag.com/darlingtons-unit-3-back-online-nearly-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/ https://www.ebmag.com/darlingtons-unit-3-back-online-nearly-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

epistasis 3y ago

Sure, have a pro-nuclear platform, but it would actually be productive it it attempted to improve the field instead of tilting at windmills of political goals. That's the difference between the success of renewables and the failures of nuclear. The renewable folks went out and built the stuff, made it scale, and fixed the problems. The nuclear folks are star-gazing, hoping and dreaming, without executing at all.

throw0101d 3y ago
> Sure, have a pro-nuclear platform, but it would actually be productive it it attempted to improve the field instead of tilting at windmills of political goals. If there are factual issues with what they say, feel free to post a comment correcting them. Just because something is (allegedly) "biased" does not make it wrong. > That's the difference between the success of renewables and the failures of nuclear. There's also a difference between the failures (and inadequacies) of renewables and the success of nuclear: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply When wind goes to zero at night (which it has done in Ontario), what are the options for keeping people warm in January and cool in July?
- epistasis 3y ago
  There's no point in correcting factual errors because what they are attempting isn't even directed towards something that improves the chances of nuclear getting deployed. The decisions that will determine how many new AP1000s get ordered in the US or BWRX300s get ordered in Canada come down to financial and logistical and contractual issues around their construction. The decisions will be made in utility board rooms, not in the court of public opinion. To improve those chances, there needs to be serious introspection on how to drive down construction costs, prevent construction delays, etc. etc. etc. Maybe there are regulatory changes that could help, but I'll be damned if the show ever talks about those in concrete constructive ways, instead regulations are merely an obstacle and an excuse for failure. In the renewable space, the hurdles are talked about in ways that they can be overcome, addressed, side stepped. In the nuclear podcast promotion space, the hurdles are immovable, somebody else's fault, and an excuse for the failure of current projects. I never hear a podcast about renewables extolling the nature of solar tech as something that just needs to be done because the tech is so cool, or repeating the failures of nuclear tech as inherent to the technology, because that's a pointless waste of time. Yet that sort of navel gazing is the only type of pro-nuclear podcast I have ever found, of about five that I have stumbled on over the years. Nuclear does not need any more cheerleaders. It needs more hackers.
  - throw0101d 3y ago
    > To improve those chances, there needs to be serious introspection on how to drive down construction costs, prevent construction delays, etc. etc. etc. Build the same designs repeatedly. No other major changes need to be made IMHO. It worked for France, Ontario, and Japan ((A)BWRs consistently built in 4-5 years)[1] in the past, and it works for every modern widget we produce in factories now. Ontario's refurbishment is on-time and on-budget because of a repeatable process: * https://archive.today/xoQDQ https://archive.today/xoQDQ / https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-darlington-nuclear-generating-station-refurbishment/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-darlington-... And sometimes not only on-time, but finishing early: * https://www.ebmag.com/darlingtons-unit-3-back-online-nearly-6-months-ahead-of-schedule/ https://www.ebmag.com/darlingtons-unit-3-back-online-nearly-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...